Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1

Author:

iat

Topic:

Gnu/Linux

Posted:

Sep 30, 2001

Comments:

500

This week saw the release of the latest and greatest version of the Linux operating system, Linux Mandrake 8.1. Although "alternative" operating systems are not usually of interest to Adequacy's readership, who prefer to trust user-friendly commercial software, this release is noteworthy. For the release of Linux Mandrake 8.1, aggressively timed to coincide with that of Microsoft's much vaunted Windows XP, marks the start of the final battle for domination of the computer industry. Make no mistake, the next few months will either see Microsoft tighten its stranglehold on the marketplace or will be a coming of age for the upstart Linux operating system.

Considering the enormous significance of this release, we at Adequacy are proud to bring you one of the first ever reviews of Linux Mandrake 8.1.

[editor's note, by bc] Due to enormous user feedback, we have done our best to correct some errors in this article. Hopefully it should be 100% correct now.

More stories by

iat

	Pet Ownership - Killing Through Kindness
	Arrested Development (Part One): Saving the Human Race
	Newbie's Guide to Online Gaming
	Kill Yr Idols: Kurt Cobain
	Celebrating 2000 Years of British Achievement
	Avatars and the Telecommunications Revolution
	Exploding the Myths of Teenage Drug Use

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux.

Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me in the "required configuration" section of the manual. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their chosen operating system and deride the "bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are blatantly incorrect. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet.

The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.

Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux.

	a request (3.50 / 2) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:09:31 AM PST

	can some l33t adequacy editor extract the user-agent from the server logs and post what miserable percentage of geeks masturbate to Linux on web boards while browsing with a useful operating system such as Windows? My excellent theory is that geek sexuality manifests itself through the classic "playing hard to get" mating strategy normal people sometimes adopt with other humans but which geeks, thanks to their unattractive status among humans, have sublimated for use with machines. I'm not saying all people who obsess over fat Finns are necessarily sluts, but I think an introspective recognition of this possibility would heal a lot of open sores and make webboards altogether nicer places to visit. I hope this makes sense.

	Who's sublimating? (2.00 / 2) (#4)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:29:17 AM PST

	Excuse me, but you obviously have a very deeply troubled sexuality yourself. It may come as a surprise to you, but "playing hard to get" is not normal human mating strategy. In fact, "playing hard to get" is a euphemism for "I'd prefer to never see you again". It seems that you yourself have some very deep psychological scars vis-a-vis your sexuality. Obviously, you have sublimated frequent cases of rejection by the opposite sex, convincing yourself that abuse and humiliation leveled at you is somehow "normal". In real life, (as opposed to the sublimated virtual construction you have created for yourself) people who like each other have no problem communicating. I'd suggest attacking your problem at the root; first of all, you need to take a hard look at yourself. There is no point in keeping the cycle of self-delusion and humiliation going; try to improve your attitude and your outlook on life, try to connect in a more meaningful, non-consumerist way with members of the opposite sex. Start anew with small things -- like chatting about the weather and going out to luch together. Eventually you may break your malignant cycle and establish a meaningful relationship. Best wishes and good luck to you. -- Peace and much love...

	Re: a request (none / 0) (#292)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:27:47 AM PST

	Why is it that people who spread around FUD always resort to childish methods to get their point across? Your post was unnecessary and inflammatory. Why not learn how to argue with actual facts and knowledge?

	Fuck you. (1.40 / 5) (#3)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:20:09 AM PST

	I don't trust "Commercial Software" and will never trust it. You can take your "user-friendly" bullshit and shove it up your ass. Excuse me for the rudeness, but I'd prefer if people didn't put words in my mouth. I can use whatever goddamn software I want to use, regardless of your insinuations. Have a nice and non-intrusive day. -- Peace and much love...

	Why _not_ trust commertial software? (4.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 12:59:46 PM PST

	I'd rather trust a group of professional, paid programmers, versus the information technologies college student majors who are writing the 'free' software such as GNU/Linux. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot even follow simple licensing measures! I cannot trust their 'skillz' to power my business. I will always trust Microsoft and Windows based software more than the crap that is churned out of the free source movement. Microsoft may be a larger price to pay at the beginning, but it pays for itself over and over within months. Who knows what those college students put into their software -hidden bugs, backdoors, etc. Most of them do not even hold jobs! Microsoft cannot do this - they would not dare, for fear of a lawsuit by the federal government. that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines.

	Whatever. (3.33 / 3) (#7)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 01:16:43 PM PST

	Look, I don't care. It's an ethical and philosophical choice for me; it's like a choice between one piece of poetry and another. Trying to argue with me that commercial software is more "professional" is akin to trying convince me to listen to Britney Spears because her music is more "professional". It's simply not a rational decision for me, sorry. -- Peace and much love...

	Choosing poetry through ethics (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:58:04 PM PST

	I much prefer the poetry of W.H. Auden over T.S Eliot. Eliot's poems may be more beautiful, and more meaningful, but he was able to get quite rich from his poetic work, and this offends my morality. I believe that people who charge money for things that I can copy easily are morally wrong. Also, I hear that T.S. Eliot did not willingly accept advice or contributions from other poets, or even strangers. For this reason, he is morally unacceptable to me, even though his poems are superior.

	Yawn .... (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:18:41 PM PST

	<em>Who knows what those college students put into their software -hidden bugs, backdoors, etc.</em> Read the source code. It's open to public review and criticism. <em>Microsoft cannot do this - they would not dare, for fear of a lawsuit by the federal government. that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines.</em> The crackers and script kiddies must love you!!! Windows 9x is the least secure Operating System on the planet. <em>I'd rather trust a group of professional, paid programmers, versus the information technologies college student majors who are writing the 'free' software such as GNU/Linux. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot even follow simple licensing measures!</em> As the Young Einstein said, "If we can't trust the politicians, who can we trust?" That was just after he discovered a way to split the beer atom ... And as for "following simple licensing measures", give me an example. Come up with some proof before you defame. If you're alleging that their source code is the result of stealing someone else's, you'd better have rock-solid, iron-hard evidence, I'm afraid. And if you are alleging that in effect because of the Microsoft licensing agreements, that Microsoft products are the only software that have any right to go on a PC - and believe you me, I have met such nutters - you're even less of a capitalist than Lenin - Lenin at least tried to moderate his monopolistic statist theory once he found it didn't work in the early 1920s.

	you sound stupid (2.00 / 1) (#179)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:43:57 AM PST

	<<that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines>> I hate to tell you this but you can't run 9x on a server. It's not a server OS/ What you ulimately have are networked PCs with file/print sharing. I'm a Network Amdin. I use Linux. I don't mess with source code. Therefore I am not a hacker. Linux is not a kiddy OS. I guess in your dindled minds the IGM Linux Labs emply kindergardeners.

	Stand back! We're scientists! (none / 0) (#51)
	by Anonymous Coward on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:28:49 PM PST

	Hi. I'm a professional programmer. A senior one, even. I am well paid and write the code that makes the whole world sing. I am glad you appreciate our fine work and choose our products. But I do need to set you straight on some things. I went to college once where I was one of those Unix hackers. (Linux wasn't invented yet nor was the PC) We wrote great code back then just as now. Better, even, because we were young and eager and not busy going to soulless business meetings. And better, because software design is really a young person's skill. That's why mathematicians (I was a math major) are considered over the hill by the time they're 25. I was also more trustworthy back then, having the ideals of the young and not the pressures to sell out that comes with having to come up with a mortgage payment every month. And so I say, trust that code of the young. It's a lot better than what "teams of professionals" turn out in most cases. I'll bet you were young once too. -- Support the home page homeless.

	Bleah (4.50 / 2) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:02:49 PM PST

	Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible. It amuses me to see all of these MS-haters who probably have a ton of indirect Microsoft stock in their 401(k) mutual funds. The recent terrorist attacks on America's economy and laissez-faire capitalism in general have severely hurt Microsoft and the country's economy. Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America. I didn't use Linux before the attacks, though I was always curious about it. I now know that I will never use it, nor will I associate myself with those that do (whenever possible.)

	How can linux be un-American? (2.00 / 1) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:00:28 PM PST

	GPL licensed software (of which the linux kernel is an example) is based on the ideas of free and open communication. That is why linux users say their software is free, where the word "free" takes the meaning of the kind of free we associate with speech. This is the freedom we as Americans enjoy under the protection of the 1st Amendment. The internet has allowed the software to become available without a monetary price, thus it is also free as in the kind of free that college students look for (free beer, etc). It is easy to confuse the two, but make no mistake: it is far more important to linux users that their software be the former kind of "free" than the latter.

	Legally fallacious (5.00 / 2) (#69)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:11:45 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Since your argument is predicated upon the definition of software as equivalent to novels, essays and great works of art, it is clear from a legal standpoint, that your GPL flies in the face of US law. Hence, Linux is un-American; an outlaw operating system, by virtue of it's anti-corporate ideology.

	Correction (1.00 / 2) (#98)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:59:26 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Since your argument is predicated upon the definition of software as equivalent to novels, essays and great works of art, it is clear from a legal standpoint, that your GPL flies in the face of US law. Hence, Linux is un-American; an outlaw operating system, by virtue of it's anti-corporate ideology. Thats not entierly true. Software is by definition a sort of speach. The only difference between a political essay(which is strongly protected by the courts) and source code is that source code has a much much more fuctional porpose. This makes it worthy of less constitutional protection, but it's still speach. Free software is no Anit-American. It's sharing of ideas. If you want your own source code to be closed source. Nothings stoping you.

	You are `correcting' the Supreme Court? (4.00 / 1) (#100)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:03:10 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Thats not entierly true. Software is by definition a sort of speach. I believe that, within the jurisdiction of the US, we all would be better served by heeding the rulings of the US Supreme Court than your opinions...

	Re: Legally fallacious (none / 0) (#295)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:01:21 AM PST

	If Linux is so anti-corporate, why are companies like Mandrake and RedHat making money off of selling Linux? Linux is anti-monopoly, not anti-corporate. And just because the government says so, Linux is not speech, and is thus un-American? It is not the courts that decide what is American and un-American. It is the people who decide. If the supreme court decided that blacks should be re-enslaved, would you call anyone who disagreed an un-American? If so, then I think that you need to go reexamine the history of the United States, and its ideals. Is software speech? Many people believe so, and I believe so too. Microsoft tried to ban Linux on these grounds, but the courts ruled in favor of Linux. Capitalism doesn't equal America. Capitalism can just as well happen in totalitarianism, and most often does. While the leaders swim in wealth and knowledge, the masses are in poverty, and often ignorant. The Taliban regime is one of them. This is what Microsoft represents. They keep the knowledge from the masses, while they get filthy rich off of it. But how many nations are about individual freedom, community freedom, the right to knowledge? A very few, and America is the leader of the pack, and has been since 1776. This is what Linux represents, ideals and freedom. Both America and Linux are about individual choice. Both are about community empowerment. America is not entirely about capitalism. America is about democracy. It is about ideals. You are elevating the idea of making money over freedom and democracy, and that is un-American.

	Freedom (1.00 / 1) (#82)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:30:10 PM PST

	Agree. Is freedom un American? I don't think so. Way to go First Amenment. You say we should think how many MS stocks we have in our 401K. You should think of how much the other companies stock depend on Free Software. About half of all internet sites are powered by Free Software.- <i>GPL licensed software (of which the linux kernel is an example) is based on the ideas of free and open communication. That is why linux users say their software is free, where the word "free" takes the meaning of the kind of free we associate with speech. This is the freedom we as Americans enjoy under the protection of the 1st Amendment. The internet has allowed the software to become available without a monetary price, thus it is also free as in the kind of free that college students look for (free beer, etc). It is easy to confuse the two, but make no mistake: it is far more important to linux users that their software be the former kind of "free" than the latter. </i>

	Re: Bleah (none / 0) (#294)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:47:40 AM PST

	Oh, I get it. You are saying that being a monopolistic power that does nothing but eat more wealth to make themselves fatter is what America is about? This is pure FUD!!! I would say that Microsoft is closer to Stalin's Soviet Union than a democratic republic. Do you own the Microsoft software that you are using? No, you don't. Microsoft owns it. you are only allowed to use it because of the EULA. What happens if there is a bug? You send a bug report, and wait months for Microsoft to fix it. Are you allowed to modify the software? No. What happens if Microsoft finds out that you installed Windows on your brother's computer? They will take legal action against you. Microsoft is very paranoid, even to the point of requiring to request Microsoft's permission to install new hardware on a computer running WindowsXP. Does this sound democratic? No. Does this sound capitalist? No. Capitalism rests on the foundations of free enterprise. Microsoft tries to kill free enterprise by stifling competition and innovation. Microsoft is a monopolistic power that is more akin to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union owned the industries, and Microsoft owns the OS. Read the UTICA agreement, and you will see. Linux, on the other hand, is American. It is a truely free operating system. If something goes wrong, you are free to find the source of the problem and fix it. You are free to see what goes on in Linux because the source code is there for everyone to see. If there is a bug, it is not uncommon for there to be a bug fix within hours of a report. The reason is that people who are enthusiastic about programming work hard to fix the problem. Unlike the Microsoft paradigm, you own the specific copy of the software you are using. So I can give a copy to my brother without fear of action. Not only that, I am free to "look under the hood" and make changes. You can take Linux and make it your OWN operating system. You can create scripts to make you system VERY powerful. Imagine if you are not allowed to open the hood of your car, and if you did, you faced legal action. Linux allows you to do that. Not only that, but you can create you own distribution of Linux and sell it. You can modify the Linux Kernel, and share it with everyone else. Linux is founded upon the ideal of freedom for computer users. These people hold ideals like the nation's founding fathers did. Read these documents by GNU. The philosophy is akin to the American Revolution. The intention is to bring freedom and democracy to the software world. The intention is to bring the highest ideals of both individual and communitarian freedoms into computing. These people are Americans are the very root. To say otherwise means that either you hate freedom, or you possess ignorance.

	I see (none / 0) (#363)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:35:34 PM PST

	>Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible....Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America.< I see. So you'll be advocating interment camps then?

	Why is Microsoft evil? (4.00 / 5) (#5)
	by Starship Trooper on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:43:00 AM PST

	The reasons for the Linux community's unending hatred for Microsoft (or Micro$oft, as Linux "haxors" often call it) have oft eluded me. How can a company be evil that is wilfully giving away free computers preloaded with free copies of their excellent Windows XP operating system? How can they be the "Borg" (an obscure reference that only Linux nerds seem to "get", alas) when their chairman donates billions annually to charity? How can their software be called bloated and crashy, yet still hold 90% of the market share in preference to supposedly "superior" alternatives from Linux and Macintosh? The answer is clear: it is sheer jealousy. These people are somehow disappointed in the fact that a million pasty-faced 15-year-olds with no job experience are unable to engineer software of the same quality as some of the best minds on this earth. They are enraged that giving your software away fails to make you rich. They can't accept that banner ads are not a business plan. Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that. --- A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

	Why is Microsoft good? (3.00 / 2) (#12)
	by Observer on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:23:04 PM PST

	Microsoft produces a relatively easy to use operating system. It is easy to use simply because it is ubiquitous and a great amount of research has been focused on the user interface. There is a highly standardized development model which makes programming under the Windows platforms very straightforward. Much of the development layer is documented in a clean and professional fashion. Multimedia aspects work wonderfully, as evidenced by Windows Media Player 6.4 on up and the automatic downloading of appropriate codecs. Business and productivity software are at the top, though there aren't many more new features which can be packed in. Alternatives are rapidly approaching the level of Microsoft Office. Those are the major points that initially come to mind. Now for the rebuttals: "How can a company be evil that is wilfully giving away free computers preloaded with free copies of their excellent Windows XP operating system?" Simple - there's a catch. Market dominance, allowing practices of monopolistic abuse, evidenced by everyone else's subsequent requirement of paying through the nose for an upgrade which has skyrocketed in cost since the government turned a blind eye after the antitrust investigation. Besides, those who receive a free computer will end up having to upgrade it again down the line with more hardware to support the next generation of Windows which will be equally as exorbitant. As for Windows XP being excellent, you're probably right. I've no interest in it, but for average users, there's no reason to take the time to understand exactly how their computer works any more than they would need to take the time to fully understand how their automobile works. For those whom are not content to remain ignorant (this isn't a bad thing, necessarily, as we all rely on each other due to ignorance or inability in some aspect of our lives), learning about the tools we use, no matter how advanced, is an irresistable lure. "How can they be the "Borg" (an obscure reference that only Linux nerds seem to "get", alas) when their chairman donates billions annually to charity?" Donations do not excuse arrogance, greed or intimidating actions. Put Bill Gates in a middle class position and he would be stepping on his coworkers to get to the top. These kinds of people make good executives, and we all know what dregs of the world they tend to be. For all the intelligence in the world, it can't redeem one from being an asshole. "How can their software be called bloated and crashy, yet still hold 90% of the market share in preference to supposedly 'superior' alternatives from Linux and Macintosh?" It is a rare occassion that a superior technology is chosen over a less desirable one. The MP3 compressed music format exploded as several significantly more advanced formats were being released. MP3 is a mediocre technology by comparison, yet by chance and popularity, it has reigned as king of the digital music formats. The Apple Macintosh does not need file extensions - those awkward '.txt', '.mp3' and '.doc' style additions to a file name. Apple's usage of metadata was far superior to Microsoft's almost two decades ago, and still is, yet the popularity of Windows took off and eventually exceeded that of the Mac due to extremely aggressive business tactics which Apple refused to take part in. Apple is certainly no saintly entity itself, but the world could have been dominated by Apple instead and there would be enough complaints about it to make it a Microsoft, as it is seen by many even today. The top dog can be an evil bastard. The underdog can entirely good and yet it can be trampled. Corporations are the epitome of everything undesirable in human nature - greed, arrogance, hate, etc... therefore, the corporate world is essentially the battle to be the worst of the worst. "The answer is clear: it is sheer jealousy." The people who work on Linux have little concern over the success of Microsoft. They are simply disgusted with the myriad problems in Windows which most users never encounter because they use it for everyday activities, such as email, browsing the internet and games. When a developer needs to get something done and has to end up working around the operating system, it is painful. When workarounds comprise half of a program, the developer is inclined to fix the operating system himself. When the operating system can only be fixed by a cabal of egotistical, money-driven businessmen, the developers who know their asses from a hole in the ground throw their hands up and look for a way out. The good are always outnumbered, as the ignorant can be swayed without their knowing. It pays to learn exactly how your car works, otherwise you'll end up being raped without even knowing it. "These people are somehow disappointed in the fact that a million pasty-faced 15-year-olds with no job experience are unable to engineer software of the same quality as some of the best minds on this earth." I'll only point out that you obviously have no comprehension of the places where most research occurs. Universities across the country are filled with thousands upon thousands whom are as intelligent, if not moreso than anyone at Microsoft's research centers. There are other research centers as well. Xerox PARC, for instance, where so many technologies have arisen and been incorporated into the fabric of today's society that it can be difficult to even keep track of them. "They are enraged that giving your software away fails to make you rich. They can't accept that banner ads are not a business plan." Banner ads have never been a business plan, no matter how many may have tried to use them as such. You'd do well to point your finger at the dotcom failures before you accuse those who simply follow their interests and create for the greater good because they like to do so. If the world were filled with more of these people, it would be a far better place than the one we have; filled with cutthroat businessmen. Do you think that physicians and surgeons always enter that field of work simply for money? There really are people in this world that realize the futility of monetary aggrandization. Of course, there are plenty of those at Microsoft whom are enjoying their jobs, especially with the lure of financial wealth. The company blinds them, though. I've seen it firsthand. When a person is making a six figure salary, it's hard not to rationalize away the blatantly vicious actions of your employer. "Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that." Sorry for what? This isn't communism. If it were, they would be offering up their apartments and houses for everyone to use. This is the sharing of ideas, not material. You who jump so quickly to accuse the Linux community of communist properties would do well to first examine the scientific community. Linux is branched from computer science, which is still a very raw field. Being a science, it is focused on abstracts - ideas. These ideas can be applied to the material world to create products. The product brought forth by the Linux community is an abstract and therefore an idea, built from other ideas. Some in the Linux community make money, most do not. Still, the ideal behind Linux is still very strong. The jealousy you mentioned earlier is simply the over-zealous segments of the community. You misinterpret their calls for change as jealousy because you are blind to the shadows which Microsoft has cast upon a promising industry. There has been much damage wrought on the computer industry, and much to correct. However, this is changing. Linux was the poster child and there are others. Microsoft may have 90% of the user market, but the infrastructure of the industry is akin to a living organism and is rejecting the foreign object that threatens it's stability. If you've read through this entire rant, I'm impressed. Now, instead of watching TV or playing a video game, go and learn about the world around you.

	Gnu Apartment License (GAL) coming soon? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
	by Logical Analysis on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:30:08 PM PST

	"Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that." Sorry for what? This isn't communism. If it were, they would be offering up their apartments and houses for everyone to use. In the words of Richard Stallman: "I did live in my office for 12 years, and I liked it. I was even registered to vote from that address. My situation was unusual because, for the first half of this period, the office was not officially my office and I had no official connection with the lab. I was a squatter in the AI Lab! The very idea is romantic." [...] "Unfortunately there was a new lab director in September 1997, who forced me to stop living in the lab. So I rented a room in Cambridge. At that very time, in October, the MIT student newspaper reported that a many MIT students were still unable to find any housing. The lab director's interference was not only inconvenient and wasteful for me; it also denied one student a possible place to live."

	Still not Communism (1.00 / 1) (#457)
	by Observer on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 01:14:42 AM PST

	If I choose to live on the street, it does not mean I'm a Communist. Stallman was not forcing anyone to share their residence. The man is dedicated, intelligent and obviously cares little for frills. Granted, there are parallels due to both concepts being idealogical, but enforcement becomes radically different in consequence. On one hand, the decimation of human rights by taking away the capacity of individuality. On the other, there is the continual sharing of ideas and knowledge, basically forcing honesty. Where lies the danger of free software, aside from that posed to business which tend to stifle research in general?

	And you know where all that cash comes from? (none / 0) (#505)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:29:26 PM PST

	It comes from doing illegal business, boy! comes from forcing people to spit out more money or else blood, but what would you know...

	linux (4.00 / 5) (#8)
	by error27 on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 02:23:54 PM PST

	When ever you say anything remotely objective about Linux, Linux users get very upset and start cursing at you. Tkatchev is a perfect example in this respect. The smaller minority of Linux users who don't just start cursing at you will try to make all kinds of excuses like, "You should have tried Slack Ware instead of Mandrake because the older versions of Linux are better." Or they will say something like, "Right now Linux isn't very good, but in four years we will have Internet Explorer for Linux and then everyone will only want to use Linux instead of Windows." These excuses don't cut it for people who have got work to do right away. In the end, I think the question Linux users need to ask is: Is there any free lunch? Throughout history people have come to realise that, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

	Yeah. (1.33 / 3) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:05:57 PM PST

	Like I said, the choice of Linux is not a rational choice for me. Let is be known that Linux does indeed suck, it just sucks infinitely less than Windows. Linux is a labor of love, a work of art (though a crappy one) whereas Windows is just a two-bit hack job by the industry equivalent of ghostwriters. I support individual creativity and initiative over mind-numbing corporate plus-plus-good double-think every time. -- Peace and much love...

	Not throughout all history. Just during... (4.50 / 4) (#11)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:07:59 PM PST

	...the history of reading Robert A. Heinlien books. Prior to that, everyone believed that lots of things could be had for free. Like love. Or sex. Or software. Or freedom. Now I know you're going to say "freedom isn't free." But I charitably assumed that when you said "there is no such thing as a free lunch" you were leaving out the possibility of stealing your lunch. If you allow for taking what isn't yours, then of course you can have lots of things for free. Now, since we are not considering that possiblity, on the assumption that we are speaking only of relations among honorable people, then no honorable person would infringe on your freedom for anything. Thus, you have your freedom for nothing. It's free! But as I've said before, free software is much more like sex than anything else: you get as much as you want for nothing. Sure you could pay a profesional for it, but why? If you are capable of giving up as good as you get (again both with sex and software) then you will get better than anything a whore could give you. Now you could be a lousy lay. Then you will probably not get much good sex for free. Then, yes, go to a pro. Absolutely. Maybe this means that ironically, geeks are the ones least able to beneift from free software. Just a thought. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	thanks for thoughtful reply (4.66 / 3) (#171)
	by error27 on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:09:06 AM PST

	It's always good to read a well considerred reply. Even though I can't agree with your conclusions, you do bring out some good points that I hadn't considerred. One thing I've noticed is that Linux users make comparisons to free speech and free sex a lot. This is not necesarilly a bad thing but how far can you take those metaphors? For example, what about the various positions? How do they fit in with software and programming? Is there a Karma Sutra of software that is officially endorsed by the FSF? As I said before, it's always pleasant to read a well reasoned reply even though it may espouse views that one does not hold himself. Especially in a forum like this where too often the posts are simply irrational rantings and cursing without any redeeming value.

	Uninformed people make bad writers (1.00 / 2) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:45:37 PM PST

	1. There is no Linux anti-virus software because there are no viruses that attack Linux. 2. I would personally be happy to be able to run IE on my Linux box, but that's up to Microsoft. IE doesn't run on Linux because MS doesn't offer Linux version. 3. MS Office doesn't run on Linux for the same reasons. 4. Windows doesn't come free with new computers. You pay for all of it.

	lies and half-truths (4.75 / 4) (#23)
	by cp on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:17:56 PM PST

	1. There is no Linux anti-virus software because there are no viruses that attack Linux. Only if you ignore the viruses that do in fact exist for linux. 2. I would personally be happy to be able to run IE on my Linux box, but that's up to Microsoft. IE doesn't run on Linux because MS doesn't offer Linux version. What of the reasons underlying that decision, which range from the technical merits and marketing viability of Linux as a platform? 3. MS Office doesn't run on Linux for the same reasons. ditto 4. Windows doesn't come free with new computers. You pay for all of it. When MSWindows is bundled with all computers everywhere, there is no meaningful difference between these two statements: I payed $600 for this computer, of which $500 went towards hardware and $100 went towards MSWindows. I payed $600 for this computer, of which $600 went towards hardware and $0 went towards MSWindows.

	nope (1.50 / 2) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:20:06 PM PST

	However the way that Linux operates, unless virii are run as a root process which is very unlikely in any half-competant user, they can not deliver an effective payload. The reasons for microsoft not placing IE on linux is because Microsoft is known to not support Linux in the least, because it is the antithesis of what Microsoft is trying to do. It is also, with other forms of free Unix, taking a substantial amount of the server market from Microsoft. Don't be so quick to say that if Microsoft doesn't support it, it must be flawed in some horrible way. And finally, if Microsoft wasn't bundled with that system, the computer would cost $500 as opposed to $600.

	IE (4.00 / 2) (#93)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:47:31 PM PST

	Actually IE has been ported to linux. But no one uses it.

	solaris not linux (1.00 / 1) (#134)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:04:22 PM PST

	They are different operating systems with completely different philosophies. Solaris is made by Sun and is used as the basis for many of the BSD operating systems out there. Linux is made by various communist groups including China and Cuba.

	Wha? (4.00 / 1) (#150)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:49:52 PM PST

	Their philosophies are irrelevant because the issue is that the Solaris version of IE will not compile under linux, atleast not without a bit of work on the code (I haven't heard of anyone doing this though). Also for reference the Solaris version of I.E. is horribly old, so you would probably be better off using another browser under Linux such as Mozilla, its spawnchild Galeon, kmellion, or the horribly unstable Nutscrape Navigator. Furthermore, BSD is it's own operating system, their relationship is that they are both nix which branched from Bell Labs' original efforts. BSD was developed in UC Berkeley while Solaris evolved from System V, Sun's and AT&Ts effort at unix. Finally, I don't really see why you think its insulting that you make the connection between open source and communism, as communism (or more specifically, socialism) was just too utopian to work. What resulted of attempts at implementing it was* quite negative however. Can you really bash them for attempting to achieve a utopian concept? --FlatLine

	china? cuba?? (none / 0) (#172)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:10:39 AM PST

	<cite>Linux is made by various communist groups including China and Cuba</cite> give me the name of one cuban programmer that aided linux. I know many linux kernel hackers, I don't know anyone from Cuba, nor from China

	Links please? (none / 0) (#147)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:37:52 PM PST

	Can someone post a link to the linux version of IE??

	IE for Linux? (none / 0) (#214)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:26:57 AM PST

	Show me the site. I know it has been ported to Solaris and HP.

	Correction of part of article (1.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:46:19 PM PST

	The Free Software Foundation are most certainly not "anti-capitalist hackers". A reading of the FSF website should make this clear to any intelligent person (the author although intelligent, must not have done his research, or is writing for effect). Mandrake Linux itself is created by a company that fully supports the goals of the FSF (look for the links from the linux-mandrake website to FSF website), but also aims to make a profit.

	GUYS SETTILE DOWN (1.00 / 1) (#265)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:22:22 AM PST

	you guys have wasted my time reading all this bullshit, bieng an average user i like useing win2k its nice and seems to stay going for a few weeks,sure i want to get into useing linux, and unix seems that any 15 year old who wants to get a job in the IT market has to get an mcse, and what it looks as tho i'll have to get other shit certifications because this place moves soo fast that hell win2k will prolly be called old in 5 years ( hehe ) anyway who really cares ! if it works it works, most users dont give a fuck, hell half of us are chinese and japanese anyway :P~

	Damn straight! (5.00 / 1) (#266)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:47:26 AM PST

	i was a linux user back when thay started making the first linux linus 0.0.0 and i remember when esr sed to linus stallmen that linux as going to be the cathedral and the basaar but linux tallman sed it was a NEW/linux hahahaha it was funny because it was true anywar jakob nelson was trying to get everyone to use his special web fonts that mde you see the title of images but we all knew thats what flash animation is 4, so we told him to shove it and we all got kickass websites and now everybody makes monet from linux especially esr who is rich from his valinux shares that they gave him for free when they put him on the board with chris diboner but i dont think richs have changed esr hes still all about liberty andthe second amendment which is more important than the first sinc you cant ddfend your freedom of sppeech without gins can you no i didnt think so but everyone seems to be forgetting riched torman who writes emacs that lunic is based on but nobody gives him credit for his work on emacs and they just call it linux which is wrong its real name is readhat linuc and igf you don t call it that then they all get mad and flame you because its not right to ignore peoples work like nobody forgets the names of the guys who make microsoft they gat alll the credit for inventing compeuters which should cgo to esr and pms cause they were there and they incvented ai at the mit ai lab where all good software is free and there are no women because women cant program or something actually i went to mit once and it was like the nerd campus total sausge fest like almost no girls on campus and noe at all in ai lab because girls all do law and commerce and management and marketing because they arent smart enough to do a subject like computers that makes so much more money than mangarers and lwayers thats why theres a glass celing that keeps the girls out of computing and anywar now people are getting angery at linuux because hes a communist from geernlend and communists blew up the world trade center using lniux cryptogerphy so we have ti get gnu lwayers to save linuc from the grpl again so im pretty busy but its good because there are sime women lawyers and there hot so there

	i love my linux, i love it good (1.00 / 1) (#288)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:09:03 AM PST

	So linux distros don't run windows apps, that's what VMware and WINE are for, and if ur running a substandard machine u don't want a gui in the first place, so don't install one, Win2k on a 486, i'd like to see that. If you wish to remain ignorant keep running windows and letting all the little "hackers" and "crackers" into ur backdoor, the way to enlightenment is lin. if not linux at least dabble in other OS's such as BSD, MacOS or BeOS, experimaentation is always good, how many people do you know who haven't tried alcohol, ciggarrettes or weed?

	WTF did he say? (2.00 / 1) (#319)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:32:51 PM PST

	Learn to spell, you illiterate fool. If you are going to say something then say it, don't drivvel on for half an hour with a lot of useless crap which I dont need to read.

	Mandrake doesn't run Windows software! Oh, no! (1.00 / 2) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:00:37 PM PST

	Now there's a Blinding Fash of the Obvious. What dark secret will Adequacy.org expose next? Of course, Mandrake doesn't run Windows applications -- Linux is set up to be an alternative to Windows, not give Bill Gates even more money. Yeah, Mandrake doesn't run Windows applications; instead, it provides alternate applications that work as as well if not better than Windows apps. And you don't have to drive down to the local Best Buy and shell out $100 for Power Point, like a friend of mine had to do this weekend because her college forces her to hand in assignments on Microsoft products. $100 for Power Point and over $400 for the Microsoft Office Suite! Do you people really have that kind of money to burn? I paid about $50 for Mandrake 8.0 on CD a month or two ago, and it includes an office suite. As for the poster who says Linux supporters are unpatriotic anti-capitalists -- what the hell are you talking about? Have you gotten past an eighth-grade economics or political science class?

	keep you sarcasm to yourself... (4.00 / 2) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:58:31 PM PST

	>>Now there's a Blinding Fash of the Obvious. What dark secret will Adequacy.org expose next? Why do Linux users always feel they have to belittle non-technical people? Sure you may have time to write your own software or whatever. And so you think you're pretty smart. The rest of us don't have so much free time as you and so we don't keep upto date on all this technical stuff. We just want to get work done. If this Linus stuff can't run windows applications then that's valuable information for us know. Your sarcastic attitude is a little bit upsetting. My mother always used to say that, "If you don't have anything good to say then you shouldn't say anything at all." This seems like a good piece of advice to me. You should consider it before the next time when you want to say something sarcastic and hurtful to someone who doesn't know everything about computers like you do.

	why do you come to this site? (none / 0) (#84)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:32:27 PM PST

	why do you come here? you want accurate information, right? you expect that people "in the know" will help you make an informed decision, right? well, if this web site decided to write an article about how the moon is really made of cheese and that you could drink motor oil and draino would you accept it, or would you write an e-mail of complaint? I am not by ANY strech of the imagination a "technical" person. I am a garbage man. and I am Linux user. I don't write programs. I don't know how to write a script file. I rarely use the command line in Linux. and I get work done. I also know that the moon is not made of cheese and that drinking motor oil and draino is suicide. In my opinion, adequacy.org loses it's credibility with this obvious hack of an article. this is like the blind leading the blind. why would you accept it? the poster is not belittling non-technical people. why would you real an article about computers from a non technical reviewer. the person you are getting defensive with is actually HELPING YOU! He feels indignant over the fact that this article is filled with erronious statements. that belittle him as well as every other reader. he is right to be angry, you should be too. real_madpuppy@yahoo.com.removethis

	Hmm (none / 0) (#91)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:45:25 PM PST

	Why do Linux users always feel they have to belittle non-technical people? Sure you may have time to write your own software or whatever. And so you think you're pretty smart. The rest of us don't have so much free time as you and so we don't keep upto date on all this technical stuff. We just want to get work done. Good point. There are tons of people in the Linux comunity that don;t understand there are people who are not technicaly skilled If this Linus stuff can't run windows applications then that's valuable information for us know. I think most should know this. Afterall, Mac can't run windows programs either. Although a small amount of programs like IE have been ported to it. But, IE has been ported to linux too. The only reason Mandrake does not include it, is that they would be sued if they did Your sarcastic attitude is a little bit upsetting. My mother always used to say that, "If you don't have anything good to say then you shouldn't say anything at all." This seems like a good piece of advice to me. You should consider it before the next time when you want to say something sarcastic and hurtful to someone who doesn't know everything about computers like you do Maybe the guy who wrote this article should have realized this too. He got so many things totally wrong it was hurtful to many Linux users. ;-)

	Well, here's my beef. (none / 0) (#118)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:32:42 PM PST

	<I>Good point. There are tons of people in the Linux comunity that don;t understand there are people who are not technicaly skilled.</I><P> Correct. And as this review so aptly demonstrates, non-technically-skilled people shouldn't write reviews of Linux distributions. :-)

	exactly wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
	by error27 on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:38:27 AM PST

	Microsoft is better not just because of the technical aspects. (Although windows is a little bit better in that regard also). But most of all Microsoft products are better because they are designed for real people, not these smelly pale skinned hermits who write their own OS. If Linux programmers wanted their software to catch on they should pay carefull attention to articles like this. Instead of trying to insult the author and call him a "dufus" or "doofus" they should thank him. If the author wrote a similar article about Microsoft software, you can bet that he would get an email directly from Microsoft thanking him. These kind of articles are a marketting departments dream because they tell exactly what things need to be worked on for the next version.

	Smelly Pale Skinned Hermits? (1.00 / 1) (#184)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:41:34 AM PST

	Ehm, do you really think that if it weren't for the people who actually DO the thinking, you would have any of the luxuries you enjoy now? Do you think the Internet would exist? Or the WWW? Or the server and forum software you are now (ab)using? When you're talking of "smelly pale skinned hermits" you might just as well be referring to Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, K&R or Isaac Neuton. But ignorance is what ignorance does... people tend to fear and contempt all that they cannot understand. Respect requires a little bit more on the intellect side to function. Apollon Koutlides

	Einstein? (none / 0) (#215)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:29:55 AM PST

	I don't see how you can compare yourself with that great man of the sciences. I really doubt that Eistein would waste his time trying to write his own operating system if there was already a perfectly good one available from Microsoft. Or in your mind, would Eistein try to hax0r into the interweb? Perhaps you imagine Eistein reading Slashdot for 14 hours a day every day? You're free to think whatever you want but personally I have far too much respect for Eistein to think he'd use Linux.

	Heh. (none / 0) (#237)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 04:30:52 PM PST

	I really doubt that Eistein would waste his time trying to write his own operating system if there was already a perfectly good one available from Microsoft That's Einstein, dude. And why wouldn't he write his own OS if the one he didn't like the one he was using? He rewrote the laws of physics when he didn't like the laws he was currently using ;)

	Pot, kettle, black (none / 0) (#365)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:42:43 PM PST

	>Why do Linux users always feel they have to belittle non-technical people? < Largely because the non-technical feel they have the right to pee on the technical with impunity.

	<Sigh> (3.33 / 6) (#17)
	by floodle on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:01:04 PM PST

	Ok, I'm sorry to have to do this, but since this guy is such a flaming moron, I feel I have no choice. The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. The man's name is LINUS. The operating system is called Linux because Linus+UNIX=Linux. No coincidence here, it's all on purpose. Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. Linux is not "shareware," it is distributed under the GNU general public license. Very different from shareware. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! The kernel can be recompiled to run on just about anything, including a 486. The 32mb memory requirement is a recommendation. You can certainly run it with 16, just expect lots of paging. Take a look at your WinXP memory requirements sometime. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? The fact that you have to ask that shows how little you know. If Mandrake tried to include IE in their distro, they would be sued into the stone age. I won't even try to explain the difference between win32 programs and Linux apps you compile from source. It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Actually, all of those work using a program called win4lin, which gives you a virtual windows desktop under Linux. Try it before you say it's impossible. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. That's because there aren't really any viruses for Linux. That, and the basic design of Linux makes it difficult for viruses to do any damage unless you're logged in as root all the time. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet. Mandrake includes several firewalls BUILT-IN to the distro, most of which are better than ZoneAlarm. If there's another one that you like better, just download it since most Linux software is free to use. Mandrake is more secure out of the box than any version of Windows. ...rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux. I'll give you that working with Linux might take some additional time and effort for a newbie user, but price? Please. Compare the cost of downloading Mandrake and burning it to a cd with buying WinXP at your local CompUSA. There are a few more errors in this terrible "review" of Mandrake, but I'm too tired to refute them right now. It's OK to dislike Mandrake or Linux in general, but please, have your facts straight first.

	RE: <Sigh> (3.00 / 2) (#20)
	by Plan571 on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:11:17 PM PST

	Yes, HE's the moron.

	Wrong. (3.20 / 5) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:22:52 PM PST

	Linux is not "shareware," it is distributed under the GNU general public license. Very different from shareware. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the supposed "difference" that you claim exists. Shareware is software with limited functionality that you download free off the net. Linux is a program with limited functionality that you download off the net. Thus, it follows by syllogism that Linux is shareware. The kernel can be recompiled to run on just about anything, including a 486. Which means that you can't install it if you don't already have a computer running linux to recompile the kernel specifically for a 486. Duh. The article's complaint stands. He can't install Mandrake in a 486. The 32mb memory requirement is a recommendation. You can certainly run it with 16, just expect lots of paging. I'm sorry, but if you expect to win over regular desktop users like me, you better speak to us in terms we can understand, not all this propellerspeak (like "paging"-- isn't that what the machine in my belt does?). That's because there aren't really any viruses for Linux. That, and the basic design of Linux makes it difficult for viruses to do any damage unless you're logged in as root all the time. Wrong. Since the most popular Lunix distro is famous for security holes (plenty of remote root attacks discovered all the time), there have been successful worms that exploit them. Since this distribution is marketed to people who don't know how to close up the system, and it installs by default all sorts of unneeded exploitable network daemons, that means that for an average windows user like me that doesn't know the meanings of terms like "remote root attack", "network worm", "distribution", "exploit", or "daemon", the virus risk from Linux is much higher than with windows. Mandrake includes several firewalls BUILT-IN to the distro, most of which are better than ZoneAlarm. Are they point-and-click? How good of an interface? How good are the help files? Do they have wizards that guide you through choosing the right configuration? A security mechanism that is too difficult for the user to use offers no security.

	Research, research, research! (3.00 / 2) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:49:03 PM PST

	I'm sorry, but I fail to see the supposed "difference" that you claim exists. Shareware is software with limited functionality that you download free off the net. Linux is a program with limited functionality that you download off the net. Thus, it follows by syllogism that Linux is shareware. Shareware has limited functionality in order to encourage purchase of the complete product, Linux's limited functionality is as limited as any other operating system: if something hasn't been written for it yet then yes I suppose it is limited because it cant perform the task that you ask of it. The two "limited functionalities" are very, very different. Furthermore, the difference between licenses is that under the GPL (general public license) the source code is free for anyone to distribute, modify, and use in their own projects, as long as credits to the original authors are maintained and that the license is upheld in the subsequent product. The two are very different. Which means that you can't install it if you don't already have a computer running linux to recompile the kernel specifically for a 486. Duh. The article's complaint stands. He can't install Mandrake in a 486. Not necessarilly, there are a myriad of sources where one can find precompiled kernels and there are pretty simple methods to install said kernels without having to boot into this version of linux. Also the complaint seems to be aimed at all of Linux, and most Linux distributions allow the user the choice to choose kernels from another media (such as floppy or cd) at install time. I'm sorry, but if you expect to win over regular desktop users like me, you better speak to us in terms we can understand, not all this propellerspeak (like "paging"-- isn't that what the machine in my belt does?). For future reference, it's usually bad practice to criticize someone for answering a technical point (many people wont even understand how ram works, so if you're going to criticize anyone, criticize the ignorant writer of this article) with a technical answer. Wrong. Since the most popular Lunix distro is famous for security holes (plenty of remote root attacks discovered all the time), there have been successful worms that exploit them. Since this distribution is marketed to people who don't know how to close up the system, and it installs by default all sorts of unneeded exploitable network daemons, that means that for an average windows user like me that doesn't know the meanings of terms like "remote root attack", "network worm", "distribution", "exploit", or "daemon", the virus risk from Linux is much higher than with windows. Well even in this case an antiviral program is useless, since protecting against cracking by way of services open to the internet is prevented with firewalls and maintaining current and secure versions of the tools and services running on the system. Antiviral programs do absolutely nothing against worms, because they aren't virii! Hence, no user-level antiviral software is needed. Are they point-and-click? How good of an interface? How good are the help files? Do they have wizards that guide you through choosing the right configuration? A security mechanism that is too difficult for the user to use offers no security. Please do some research before bringing up a point like that. As a matter of fact, the documentation is quite good. Furthermore the users aren't limited by whatever has been packaged with mandrake! This is especially valid since the author once again chooses to bash Linux in general instead of focussing on Mandrake. There countless firewall/packet-filtering packages available for Linux, many of them also with adequate documentation and even some exceptional ones with simple ways to implement basic protection (and zonealarm is quite basic as well).

	Oh god (4.50 / 2) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:18:46 PM PST

	Shareware has limited functionality in order to encourage purchase of the complete product Eh, you don't purchase shareware, you download it off the net. Linux's limited functionality is as limited as any other operating system This is a factually false statement. Windows has many features that in Linux are either (a) lacking (e.g. wizards), or (b) incorrectly implemented (e.g. the GUI). Furthermore, the difference between licenses is that under the GPL (general public license) the source code is free for anyone to distribute, modify, and use in their own projects, as long as credits to the original authors are maintained and that the license is upheld in the subsequent product. Why do you linux nazis have always to present this argument as if everybody knew how to program a computer (not to mention use one)? No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works. So the fact that I can theoretically modify Linux makes no difference to me. Not necessarilly, there are a myriad of sources where one can find precompiled kernels and there are pretty simple methods to install said kernels without having to boot into this version of linux. Eh, the whole distribution is compiled with Pentium optimizations, you need to recompile everything. And I'm sure Mandrake doesn't come with an automated build system such as the ones included with the BSDs, so this is not a simple matter of typing `make world` as under BSD. For future reference, it's usually bad practice to criticize someone for answering a technical point (many people wont even understand how ram works, so if you're going to criticize anyone, criticize the ignorant writer of this article) with a technical answer. I'm sorry, but what's really bad is to try to use words your interlocutor doesn't understand in order to project an aura of superiority without even addressing the arguments. If you want to argue with me, you will please "lower" yourself to my level of tech ignorance. Well even in this case an antiviral program is useless, since protecting against cracking by way of services open to the internet is prevented with firewalls and maintaining current and secure versions of the tools and services running on the system. Nope, this is bad security policy, which every real security expert advices against. A firewall should be a first line of defense against attacks from outside your network, not your whole network defense. Firewalls can be compromised and/or bypassed by skilled enough attackers, and won't do anything to protect you from attacks inside your network. Please do some research before bringing up a point like that. As a matter of fact, the documentation is quite good. Given the vanishing percentage of the R&D budgets in the Linux industry which are spent on usability studies, your bald assertion is laughable. Do you know how much money commercial companies spend in making their software usable? Do you know the amount of research they conduct into this? "Free Software" developers do nothing of the sort. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Furthermore the users aren't limited by whatever has been packaged with mandrake! Oh, yeah, the good old "since you can change any component in Linux, it doesn't actually have to include any good components-- the user can change them, after all!"

	Ha (none / 0) (#77)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:24:28 PM PST

	>>This is total FUD Shareware has limited functionality in order to encourage purchase of the complete product Eh, you don't purchase shareware, you download it off the net. >>no, you donwnload a limit version of the internet, and then if you want the full version you have to purchase it Linux's limited functionality is as limited as any other operating system This is a factually false statement. Windows has many features that in Linux are either (a) lacking (e.g. wizards), or (b) incorrectly implemented (e.g. the GUI). >>Linux is simply a kernel it is not an OS like windows. Madrake is simply the linux kernel with a set of tools and programs. You can do everything you can do in windows. It has an office aplication, Star Office. It has standard web browser, Netscape. Furthermore, the difference between licenses is that under the GPL (general public license) the source code is free for anyone to distribute, modify, and use in their own projects, as long as credits to the original authors are maintained and that the license is upheld in the subsequent product. Why do you linux nazis have always to present this argument as if everybody knew how to program a computer (not to mention use one)? No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works. So the fact that I can theoretically modify Linux makes no difference to me. >> one good point Not necessarilly, there are a myriad of sources where one can find precompiled kernels and there are pretty simple methods to install said kernels without having to boot into this version of linux. Eh, the whole distribution is compiled with Pentium optimizations, you need to recompile everything. And I'm sure Mandrake doesn't come with an automated build system such as the ones included with the BSDs, so this is not a simple matter of typing make world as under BSD. >> I can't beleve you run BSD, when you come up with these ignorant comments. BSD is very simelar to GNU/Linux For future reference, it's usually bad practice to criticize someone for answering a technical point (many people wont even understand how ram works, so if you're going to criticize anyone, criticize the ignorant writer of this article) with a technical answer. I'm sorry, but what's really bad is to try to use words your interlocutor doesn't understand in order to project an aura of superiority without even addressing the arguments. If you want to argue with me, you will please "lower" yourself to my level of tech ignorance. >>good point Well even in this case an antiviral program is useless, since protecting against cracking by way of services open to the internet is prevented with firewalls and maintaining current and secure versions of the tools and services running on the system. Nope, this is bad security policy, which every real security expert advices against. A firewall should be a first line of defense against attacks from outside your network, not your whole network defense. Firewalls can be compromised and/or bypassed by skilled enough attackers, and won't do anything to protect you from attacks inside your network. >>uh? thats what he said, you need to keep your sowtware up to date, and your uneeded web services off. This is after firewall security Please do some research before bringing up a point like that. As a matter of fact, the documentation is quite good. Given the vanishing percentage of the R&D budgets in the Linux industry which are spent on usability studies, your bald assertion is laughable. Do you know how much money commercial companies spend in making their software usable? Do you know the amount of research they conduct into this? "Free Software" developers do nothing of the sort. Nada. Zilch. Zero. >>actually they do. Have you ever looked at all the docs included with Madrake. It well of 200mb. Furthermore the users aren't limited by whatever has been packaged with mandrake! Oh, yeah, the good old "since you can change any component in Linux, it doesn't actually have to include any good components-- the user can change them, after all!" >>you can get them of the web stupid. I have you ever downloaded software. Or did you think your win95 cd had all the programs you ever needed.

	Bah (none / 0) (#111)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:20:55 PM PST

	Instead of repeating what was said in post #77 (titled "Ha"), I would like to focus on a few points that were left uncovered. Why do you linux nazis have always to present this argument as if everybody knew how to program a computer (not to mention use one)? No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works. So the fact that I can theoretically modify Linux makes no difference to me. I was simply stating a major difference between shareware and open source software. I was trying to say that just because they are both free, doesn't mean they are the same thing. While having access to source code may not mean a whole lot to the regular non-coding users, it can be a very powerful tool for people that would like to further develop the software or use its existing technology in their own projects. Also source code allows the entire security industry to find exploits in it, and while this may seem like a very negative thing, this open policy also allows for quick patching of holes and doesn't give the end users a false sense of security, which is far worse than to have than no security at all. Eh, the whole distribution is compiled with Pentium optimizations, you need to recompile everything. And I'm sure Mandrake doesn't come with an automated build system such as the ones included with the BSDs, so this is not a simple matter of typing make world as under BSD. I concede, that is true, though the original article is still horribly flawed by bashing linux in general simply because one of the distributions which is already considered worse than many other more powerful ones (such as debian or slackware, which can in fact run on 486, and debian can even run on the PowerPC architecture as well) by experienced linux users, does not allow the user the option to run it on older systems. The faults of mandrake do not necessarilly reflect on all of Linux. I'm sorry, but what's really bad is to try to use words your interlocutor doesn't understand in order to project an aura of superiority without even addressing the arguments. If you want to argue with me, you will please "lower" yourself to my level of tech ignorance. I was simply trying to say that an issue which was brought up on a technical level should be addressed on a technical level. The original article does so and I find nothing wrong with refuting it in a technical manner as well. The technical language in the reply was not, as far as I could see, used to create an aura of superiority, therefore I felt that there was nothing wrong with it and it didn't need to be brought down to a level that laymen could understand. --FlatLine

	Oh God (1.00 / 1) (#212)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:12:10 AM PST

	UH! Shareware - download of the net - setup, read terms of use - click ok or not ok, mostly "ok" program installs. Generally with Shareware announcement that after 30 days the program will cease to operate, or the program has certain functions turned off and in order to gain full use of the programs functions register at their website and pay something like 19.95 to get a code/license, enter reg # - full featured program is turned on. Freeware - download of the net. setup, read terms of use/disclaimer - install. Full featured program. No mandatory registration to use, can upgrade to a version with more features for a small fee, or not (AkA Zone Alarm, personal version is freeware. Pro version is Shareware - try it for 30 days and then pay small fee for full time use). GNU public licence. Freeware with all the source code available to modify, rewrite, tweak at leasure, impliement into what you like (in other words no funny squiggly, abstract symbols and characters that are not intelligible to humans - write in plan uncoded programming language). Give it to who ever you want. Basic premiss: Just like scientific research and publications - you must give credit where credit is due. In otherwords no plagerism. You can't take credit for someone else invention (or coding as the case may be). You can't hijack a program that was writing by several programmers, make a slight change, then run down to the patent office and lock out any further development or charge money for a program that others invented. I'm not a programmer or in the computer industry in the slightest. I;m a registerd nurses. I run linux because it's safe, stable, and affordable (yes i paid for it, a lot less expensive the Windows). I run a duel boot system. I use Windows to play games (though less these days since Linux games run better in most cases). I'm not a Linux nazi, I believe you should use whatever you comfortable with. My major contention is end-user choice. I do believe you may find somethings distasteful in the next couple of years related to Microsoft, cost, and privacy. then again, maybe not. Windows did what Bill Gates said it would. I put a computer in every house (that's if every house buys a computer). However, the main focus of Microsoft is to make money for shareholders, that's fine also - not a problem! The way I see it is that with 9 out of 10 desktop computers running Windows. The focus is on sales - not really technology (though Microsoft does a lot of development). The focus of Linux is on Technology, and then sales. Seriously, Linux has become quit user friendly. The point is that like shareware vs freeware vs proprietary is what it gives the user. I find Linux gives me what I need, doesn't crash, and hasn't trashed by a virus/worm. Oh and linux comes with at least 4 or 5 different firewalls, And SuSE 7.2 (running the 2.4.4-4GB kernel) came with both "Antivir" and AMaVIS (A Mail Virus Scanner).

	Eh? (1.00 / 1) (#360)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:57:06 PM PST

	>No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works.< And yet you insist on having opinions eh?

	Eh what? (5.00 / 1) (#361)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:20:19 PM PST

	I see we have a Nazi in here. Using your logic, nobody would be able to have an opinion on anything except what they do. Therefore, we would not have a right to criticize world leaders, movies, Bill Gates (are you a CEO? No I didn't think so), etc. This is the kind of world we would live in if Linux users had anything to say about it. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Godwin's law (0.00 / 1) (#401)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:54:56 AM PST

	>I see we have a Nazi in here. Oh come on, kewl d00dz like YOU should be able to come up with better than THAT. >Using your logic, nobody would be able to have an opinion on anything except what they do. < False. There is a qualitative difference between the uniformed opinion and the expert opinion. Or do you plan on having "opinions" on how the surgeon does your by-pass should that day come? >Therefore, we would not have a right to criticize world leaders, movies, Bill Gates (are you a CEO? No I didn't think so), etc.< Specious. It actually would be legitimate to question my non-CEO opinion on matters which require expertise in high level business. Meaning, I don't KNOW how to be a CEO so any opinion on such from me would be uniformed and useless. That doesn't mean I can't ever criticize Gates. Not everything he does is limited to the technical realm of the CEO. There are, in fact, areas in which he has "opinions" which are as uniformed as the last homeless guy you passed. >This is the kind of world we would live in if Linux users had anything to say about it.< Oh ha. Ha ha. Ha hee ha hee hee. Or something to that effect. Boy, you guys are just... yawn... excuse me, too funny.

	There is no Godwin's Law. (nt) (none / 0) (#420)
	by elenchos on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:12:01 PM PST

	I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	oh Troll on my Windoze brotha! (1.00 / 1) (#246)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:12:51 PM PST

	I'm sorry, but I fail to see the supposed "difference" that you claim exists. Shareware is software with limited functionality that you download free off the net. Linux is a program with limited functionality that you download off the net. Thus, it follows by syllogism that Linux is shareware. Quick question: Are you a Microsoft Shareholder (wouldn't that suck?) or are you having sex with someone who works at Microsoft? Which means that you can't install it if you don't already have a computer running linux to recompile the kernel specifically for a 486. Duh. The article's complaint stands. He can't install Mandrake in a 486. Well, if the author is so grossly ignorant he doesn't know that the i586 came after the i486, and that programs compiled with 586 optimizations won't run on a 486 then maybe that is his problem. God forbid he learn how to read the minimum requirements, or grab the 486 version that is plainly available. Programs compiled for i586 or better not running on a i486 is true of programs compiled with Microsoft's Visual C++ too and not just some "Linux thing."<sup>TM</sup> I'm sorry, but if you expect to win over regular desktop users like me, you better speak to us in terms we can understand, not all this propellerspeak (like "paging"-- isn't that what the machine in my belt does?). 'Paging' is also known to you proppeller-speaking Windows users as "using Virtual Memory." When you don't have enough memory installed in your computer to run the operating system and user programs you are running some of the memory that isn't being actively used will be copied to the harddisk to make additional room for applications and user data. You know what 'applications' and 'user data' are, right? No, I didn't think so. Wrong. Since the most popular Lunix distro is famous for security holes (plenty of remote root attacks discovered all the time), there have been successful worms that exploit them. Since this distribution is marketed to people who don't know how to close up the system, and it installs by default all sorts of unneeded exploitable network daemons, that means that for an average windows user like me that doesn't know the meanings of terms like "remote root attack", "network worm", "distribution", "exploit", or "daemon", the virus risk from Linux is much higher than with windows. There is a point and click interface to add and remove daemons that are needed or not used. During the install you are told not to run daemons you do not use. About 80 or so Windows users on the same network segment with me have their C:\ drives shared with the world c/o Windows 98's tight security. If I were so inclined I could leave notes on their desktops. Thank you Microsoft! Would you care to perhaps NAME A REMOTE ROOT HOLE? You know, or perhaps recount for me all the many virii that have hit Linux in the past 5 years. Then, you can try recounting all the Windows virii in the past 5 years but you may have FBI at your door for launching a Denial of Service attack if you list >5% of them. Are they point-and-click? How good of an interface? How good are the help files? Do they have wizards that guide you through choosing the right configuration? Yes, they are point and click. They have beautiful and fully functional interfaces. They offer from a simple wizard that a novice could use all the way up to a powerful and flexible wizard for the pros.

	hehehe (1.00 / 1) (#268)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:33:26 AM PST

	Jesus I though Morons like you were only in comic books ;-) Nice to see there are some left in the real world :-)

	You read comic books? (1.00 / 2) (#284)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:37:40 AM PST

	Are you illiterate or just a loser?

	are you sure you've used Linux? (3.40 / 5) (#37)
	by otak on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:06:20 PM PST

	Your post is so full of obvious distortions and misunderstandings that I really can't be bothered to reply to it all. Perhaps this one thing will illustrate your level of knowledge: There are a few more errors in this terrible "review" of Mandrake, but I'm too tired to refute them right now. It's not 'Mandrake', it's Linux Mandrake, or just 'Linux 8.1' if you're in a hurry. 'Mandrake' is the version name, like XP or NT. Please don't try to fake knowledge if you don't have it - adequacy has a lot of smart people posting to it and you will be found out.

	Mandrake is not a "version" of linux. (2.50 / 2) (#50)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:26:20 PM PST

	The latest version of linux is 2.4.10. Linux is merely a kernel. Mandrake, a distribution, is a combination of the linux kernel and a bunch of software that does something useful. There are many distributions of linux, such as Redhat and Debian. These all use the linux kernel, but the other software bundled around it is sometimes vastly different.

	You suck (0.50 / 2) (#274)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:30:47 AM PST

	Didnt you just make yourself look the fool?! PS. call it Linux 8.1 again and I'll personally kick your ahole anew.

	are you sure you've used linux (none / 0) (#521)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:09:51 PM PST

	Talking of knowledge.... The correct name of the distro is MandrakeLinux not Linux mandrake. The version number 8.1 has no meaning in the context of Linux, it only refers to MandrakeLinux, other distros are at different version numbers. Perhaps you should try to get your facts right before yu criticize others petew

	You fucking idiot (none / 0) (#522)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:12:07 AM PST

	The correct name of the distro is MandrakeLinux not Linux mandrake No, it is called "Linux Mandrake". Read this page you fucking halfwit. Mandrake is a French distribution, and nouns (that's the word "Mandrake" to you, dipshit) precede the adjective (that's "Linux" to you, asshole) in the French language. Hence, they call their distribution "Linux Mandrake", not Mandrake Linux. Can you get that into your thick fucking skull, you Lunix weenie?

	Congratulations... (none / 0) (#536)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 05:18:49 PM PST

	Lemme splice this up a sec... Mandrake is a French distribution... nouns (Mandrake) precede adjectives (Linux) in the French language. Okay, so simplified, you just shot your own argument out of the water. What you just said yields "Mandrake Linux."

	Windows comes free with most computers? Wrong! (1.00 / 3) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:06:59 PM PST

	The author said, "After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality." Ummm, that's not close to true. There's a Windows tax on every PC you buy that's loaded with a Windows OS. Computers would be several hundred dollars cheaper without Windows pre-installed.

	True true true (none / 0) (#211)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:02:35 AM PST

	Windows ME or Windows 98 costs us OEM distributers around $100 that we lose in profit cause we have to sell Windows with the computers. Windows 2000 costs in OEM close to $160. So Windows doesn't come Free. IMHO.

	bullshit (5.00 / 1) (#220)
	by Peter Johnson on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:40:21 AM PST

	The version of Windows that comes preinstalled on computers from major manufacturers like Gateway, Dell, HP, Compaq (now also HP) costs very little. Less than 40$ for the most part. The reason for this is that the major manufacturers agree to pick up support costs for the operating system + hardware. When they do this, Microsoft saves a huge amount of cash on support costs and passes the savings along to the vendor. (despite charging for phone support, Microsoft does not make money on tech support.) If the major manufacturers sold computers with Lunix preinstalled, they'd still have to pick up the tab for support, and the usability problems with Lunix would incur greater support charges than the $35 or so they pay to MS. This is why back when Dell sold home PCs with Lunix, they charged more than for an equivalent Windows box. Your friend, --Peter Are you adequate?

	Right Tool for the Job (4.00 / 3) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:10:32 PM PST

	At its root, software is simply a tool for productivity. It provides conveniences and shortcuts so that your your life is easier and more productive. In my younger days, I believed that software was an art; It could be elegant and clear or it could be a clumsy hack. Perhaps that's still true, but it doesn't affect the vast majority of computer users out there. 99% of computer users are only concerned about getting the job done. Now, the battle has been raging for years over whose operating system can beat the snot out of the other operating systems. Win32: I have the most market share and applications! Linux: Yeah, but I don't have to reboot every hour! Mac: I'm more secure and user friendly than you guys! And on and on it goes. I am a firm believer that each operating system has its strengths and weaknesses, and that there will always be zealots from the various camps. Ultimately, I don't think there will ever be a unanimous consent on which is the "Best" operating system, because different people have different needs and agendas. Choice is a good thing.

	Right Tool for the Job (none / 0) (#337)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:15:57 AM PST

	I agree. Use the right tool for the job. This makes for a good laugh though.. Microsoft: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go, tomorrow? UNIX: Hey, you guys coming?

	I'm surprised (1.75 / 4) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:11:43 PM PST

	I just wandered here & read a couple of stories & comments. Adequacy indeed. Maybe that should be changed to barelyadequate.org. In this story alone I've read maybe one almost factually correct comment. Almost nothing in the parent story is correct. Since I'm bored, and you guys obviously need a little education, I'll correct a few items: 1. The person who created the Linux kernel is Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds. Linux is the operating system, Linus is the person. 2. Mandrake, Red Hat, Slack Ware (slackware), Storm and Coral (Corel) are all different distributions of Linux, similar to the different types of Windows (NT, 95, 98, 2000). They are all different, but have much in common. 3. Mandrake is a particular distribution tailored to Pentium computers. Other distros are not. I run slack happily on several 486s with 8-32mb RAM. Each distro has it's strengths & weaknesses, and it's own target audience. So does Windows. 95 might run on a 486, but I bet he won't run 2000 on it. 4. Internet Explorer is not a standard. It is a proprietary piece of software written by MS. It mostly follows the standards, which a few extensions. All browsers extend the HTML standard, so I won't knock them too much on that. The reason there is no Linux version is because MS doesn't want to write a compatible version. If it were open source, someone else could port it to Linux. (that being said, is one of the biggest arguments in favor of open source software such as Linux). However, most distributions ship with Netscape, at least, and usually 4-10 other browsers. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ is the place to learn about HTML standards. 5. There are several Office suites available on Linux, and not a few games. However, if you want to run mostly MS software, you should be running Windows. And yes, currently Windows is a better gaming platform. Not as good as a Playstation, but better than Linux. Linux is good for a lot of things, but not everything. As to the unreliability of the software, if he actually installed Linux, he'd find out that the free beta (testing) software is much more stable & reliable than Windows. I reboot windows at work daily. I reboot my Linux machines when I feel like it, some of them only get rebooted when the power goes out. 6. As for security, there is a good reason why there are few virus scanners for Linux (I've heard of one or two, used for mail servers that serve Windows PCs), almost all viruses run only on Windows PCs. You can't get them on Linux. And many commercial firewal products (linksys, dlink, etc) are based on a Linux core. Just because you don't see Linux doesn't mean it's not there. Every current Linux distribution offers firewalling, the version in Mandrake 8.1 is supposed to be one of the most user-friendly. I don't know, I have an old 486 running a Slackware based firewall for my entire network, and it also acts as a web server, a file server, and a mail server. It's so reliable in it's tasks that I don't even have a monitor or keyboard for it, it'll email me if it's having problems & automatically lock out any "hackers" trying to break in. Code Red, Nimda? Both only run on Windows servers. They cause so many problems because most people don't even know they have it. 7. Windows does not come free with new PCs. You pay for it in the cost of the computer. Bill Gates did not become a billionaire by giving away his products. In closing, Linux is not for everyone, but neither is Windows. There are many instances where I would not recommend Linux, where Windows is a better choice. Linux is making incredible progress in the arena of user friendliness, but I'll give it a year or so before I'll tell my grandmother to install it. Still, I'll use it, and many other people will start using it when they realize how expensive it will be to run WinXP, and the fact that MS will soon after start operating on a lease basis, where you have to pay a monthly fee to use it or it stops working. jred www.cautioninc.com

	wrong, wrong, wrong (4.00 / 4) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:39:03 PM PST

	1. Linux is both the person and the kernel. The operating system is GNU/Linux. 2. Those are different versions of GNU/Linux, having both the Linux kernel (coded by Linux Torvalds) and GNU underpinnings. 3. Windows 2000 is a server operating system. 486s are not server hardware. Your point is irrelevant. 4. Standards are defined by marketshare. 90% of computer users use IE. Therefore, IE is the standard. You must be a netscape apologist. 5. Thank you for admitting the superiority of Windows. It helps to excuse your other fallacies. 6. As someone else pointed out in another comment, viruses do exist for Linux. The reason why you haven't heard much about them can only be because Linux users and traderags that cater to Linux users don't want to burst the bubble of Linux's perceived invulnerability. 7. IE is given away for free. Why would Bill Gates be giving IE away for free if he weren't already in the habit of giving his software away for free? Hmmmm? In closing, you're going to have to do much better than that if you're going to help Linux Torvalds achieve world domination for GNU/Linux and the GNU Public License he promotes.

	you know nothing about linux (2.20 / 5) (#40)
	by real linux user on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:11:41 PM PST

	its linus not linux linux is the kernal linus is the person linux ( the os ) was originaly called freeix i dont feel like going through the rest of what you have wrong but if you dont like linux dont use it I dont like windows but thats my opinion and i respect your opinion of liking windows and i wont try to insalt windows not that i couldnt its just if you like windows you wont like linux nuf said.

	Welcome real linux user! (5.00 / 7) (#57)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:45:53 PM PST

	I think you have a natural poetic talent, but if you apply yourself more, you can refine your innate creative drive through a disciplined study of the technical aspects of your art. Even today's free verse should have some form. It should scan, even if only lightly. If I may take the liberty, here would be how I would proceed with a second draft: It's Linus Not Linux a poem by real linux user It's Linus not Linux; Linux is the kern[e]l; Linus is the person. Linux ( the O.S. ) Was original[l]y Called Freeix. I don't feel like going through The rest of what you have wrong. But if you don't like Linux Don't use it. I don't like Windows but that's my opinion. And I respect your opinion Of liking Windows and I won't try to ins[u]lt Windows, not that I couldn't. It's just [that], if you like Windows You won't like Linux. 'Nuf[f] said. -- -- See? Now, I know some poets these days still reject standard punctuation and capitalization, and I can respect that if you really feel more comfortable writing that way. In this case, I showed my preference for a return to standard English. The whole all-lowercase, no punctuation thing is just so... well, so 1985, you know? It's really been done so much that it hardly has the effect it once did, so why not take advantage of the contrast you get with standard English, vis a vis your radical ideas and your traditional form? But really, that's up to you. If you want to take out the punctuation and put it all back in lowercase, go ahead. You'll still have a pretty good poem, either way. Good work. I hope to see more of your writing here! I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Horrible rebutals.. (1.50 / 2) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:13:51 PM PST

	1. Linux is both the person and the kernel. The operating system is GNU/Linux. Linux is not a person, nor the kernel. Linus Torvalds is the person that created the Linux kernel. Linux on its own is the entire operating system. and GNU/Linux is another name for Debian which is the Free Software Foundation's (atleast I think that's the name. Whatever foundation sponsored the rest of the Linux operating system besides the kernel.) distribution of the Linux operating system. All distributions are not referred to as GNU/Linux. 2. Those are different versions of GNU/Linux, having both the Linux kernel (coded by Linux Torvalds) and GNU underpinnings. Well, you're half right. As I've stated before they're not all GNU/Linux, but that's a technicallity. Though he's more correct in calling them distributions, because the types of windows that he mentioned are different versions of Windows, not different distributions. 3. Windows 2000 is a server operating system. 486s are not server hardware. Your point is irrelevant. A nice thing about linux however is that the distributions that can run on older hardware can effectively make it a server. There are tons of people that are using old 486s among other types of hardware as the gateway machines on their networks, to share internet access and firewall the rest of the network. His point remains valid. 4. Standards are defined by marketshare. 90% of computer users use IE. Therefore, IE is the standard. You must be a netscape apologist. He was referring to protocol standards, determined by standards groups such as the International Organization for Standards (ISO). Any web browser can be coded to comply with these standards, therefore IE is not a standard on its own. It may be a benchmark for web browsers, but that's not the same issue. 5. Thank you for admitting the superiority of Windows. It helps to excuse your other fallacies. That's mature... Don't throw away the basket just because one egg is bad. 6. As someone else pointed out in another comment, viruses do exist for Linux. The reason why you haven't heard much about them can only be because Linux users and traderags that cater to Linux users don't want to burst the bubble of Linux's perceived invulnerability. That person was incorrect in assuming that worms and exploits were the same as virii, and I have already replied to their post to correct this. There is no massive conspiracy in the Linux community to cover up the dangers of virii, in fact the Linux and open source community is a big opponent of security through obscurity and is generally quite open on all issues. 7. IE is given away for free. Why would Bill Gates be giving IE away for free if he weren't already in the habit of giving his software away for free? Hmmmm? Internet Explorer was created and given away in an attempt (a successful one at that) to grab internet market share when they realized that they were being passed by in this field. Other than patches and similar small attempts to gain market share (such as windows media player), and patches, what else does he give away? His operating system? Heck no! Oh and the things that are given away, their source code isn't released to the public either. In closing, don't argue about thing that you have no experience or knowledge of!

	duh (2.00 / 1) (#176)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:34:46 AM PST

	<<Linux on its own is the entire operating system.>> So by that logic ntkernel or kernel32 are OSes? I think not. They are KERNELS.

	.....step away from the crack pipe (none / 0) (#191)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 06:36:03 AM PST

	Um, no I'm afraid not. Linux is an operating system, just like Windows 98 or Windows NT are operating systems. Linux has a kernel, it is called the linux kernel. Windows 98 has a kernel, it is called kernel32, Windows NT has a kernel as well. There is a distinct difference between an Operating System and a kernel. Would you like further proof? www.linux.org/info/index.html Doesn't get more official than that. See all of those references to Linux being an operating system? Very good now. --FlatLine

	what?? (1.75 / 4) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:24:23 PM PST

	that was the most idiotic load of garbage I have ever read?!?!? Linux Torvalds?!?! was this written by Batchfile Gates?

	Yawn again ... (1.50 / 2) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:42:07 PM PST

	<cite>1. Linux is both the person and the kernel. The operating system is GNU/Linux.</cite> The person is Linus Torvalds. "Linux" was the name Linus and a friend at Helsinki University came up with for the Operating System kernel he found himself writing. "GNU/Linux" is the word the FSF and the Debian group use. <cite>2. Those are different versions of GNU/Linux, having both the Linux kernel (coded by Linux Torvalds) and GNU underpinnings.</cite> Praise be!!! He got at least one thing right! Let us declare a national day of celebration! <cite>4. Standards are defined by marketshare. 90% of computer users use IE. Therefore, IE is the standard. You must be a netscape apologist.</cite> I would agree, if it wasn't for the fact that standards also need to be maintained by a standards body with some sort of inertia so that we don't have Microsoft users complaining perpetually to computer mags about "Office 2000 doesn't play with my Office 97 files", etc ad infinitum, ad nauseam ... Also, what is wrong with being a "netscape apologist", please tell? If competition is part of capitalism, why do you personally have a downer on netscape, one of Microsoft's erstwhile competitors? Are you one of Microsoft's Taleban? <cite>7. IE is given away for free. Why would Bill Gates be giving IE away for free if he weren't already in the habit of giving his software away for free? Hmmmm?</cite> Market share! Do they teach you nothing at college these days? Market share in this case is generated by giving away the sausage and selling the sizzle. And by making sure that Internet Explorer runs on practically every desktop, Bill Gates makes sure that Netscape won't make any money. That's a long, long way from giving away the source code so that the product can be independently reviewed and debugged. In short, the review was atrocious, a joke in bad taste, and yes, if the reviewer had bothered to pay any attention, he would've noticed that Mandrake is also available for 486s.

	You've got to be joking! (2.50 / 2) (#58)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:46:14 PM PST

	I thought at first this article was a 'troll' by a Linux user trying to make an obviously stupid comment and seeing who'd bite. But jees , I think now its for real. Unbelievable. I can't believe how wrong this article is .. calling that guy ignorant is really the most charitable thing I can say. So I'll leave it at that. However just replying to what you said: 1. The guy's first name is LINUS not Linux. Check it out its not a secret. 2. Different distributions of Linux may still have exactly the same kernel they are not different versions. Version has a very specific meaning in software development. And anyway the current Mandrake is based on the current RedHat. 3. I am writing this from work on my Win 2000 WORKSTATION not server. And I use it to run an xclient to the server which runs RedHat. 4. Standards are open. IE is usually the default browser but since IE is not open perhaps by standard you mean typical. 5. Windows is good for gaming. And Office is better than comparable suites on Linux ... at the moment. Linux evolves MUCH faster than Windows. 10 years ago Linux was at the level of Dos 1. 3 years ago it was at the level of Windows 3. Today I prefer it to windows. 6. There are FOUR known viruses for Linux, and they are rare, don't do much damage and one in fact has an anti-virus written for it. New Windows virii come out daily. Fact of life. Most people in the linux community just laugh at all the damage done by SirCam and CodeRed and Nimda. Doesn't affect us at all. 7. IE was given away free to destroy Netscape .. which it has succeeded in doing. Read the judgement of fact in the monopoly case against MS. Maybe this is all still a troll ... surely people aren't that clueless ?

	a minor correction (5.00 / 1) (#107)
	by Logical Analysis on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:12:56 PM PST

	GNU/Linux Close, but not quite right. Normally I would ignore such an obvious typo, but since this article is geared towards computer "newbies" I think it is important to have all the facts correct. The question of what is the correct name for "Linux" has been a hotly debated topic amongst its users and developers. Fortunately, at the 2001 Linux World Convention, a name was agreed on by all participants (Including such luminaries as Linux Thorvalds, Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens, Eric Raymonds, Commander Taco, and Jack Briggs). The correct, full name of "Linux" is in fact GUN/LINUX. Furthermore, GUN/LINUX is now a registered trademark of Linux Thorvalds and is also an ISO and IETF standard. Thank goodness this debate can finally end! Now if we can just decide on the proper pronunciation! For more information on the new name, check out this website: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/geeks-with-guns/

	check your data (none / 0) (#177)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:37:40 AM PST

	<<The correct, full name of "Linux" is in fact GUN/LINUX. Furthermore, GUN/LINUX is now a registered trademark of Linux Thorvalds and is also an ISO and IETF standard. Thank goodness this debate can finally end! Now if we can just decide on the proper pronunciation!>> I think you mean G-N-U not G-U-N. GNU is a self proclamation acronym that stands for GNU's NOT UNIX. The correct name for Linux is NOT GNU/Linux. GNU has consitantly stated this. I don't supposed you ever heard of HURD.

	Isnt his name (none / 0) (#247)
	by Husaria on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:32:33 PM PST

	Linus Tolvalds? Sig sigger

	Well with users like you, I understand why windows (1.66 / 3) (#163)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:43:27 PM PST

	crashes all the time. Do you use the CD drive for a coffee cup holder?

	Please don't bring propaganda here. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:44:28 PM PST

	Mandrake, Red Hat, Slack Ware (slackware), Storm and Coral (Corel) are all different distributions of Linux, similar to the different types of Windows (NT, 95, 98, 2000). They are all different, but have much in common. How does this differ from what the article says: Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Thus, your "correction" has the exact same content as the article! Frankly, this is easily among the most dishonest rhetorical devices I've seen. Internet Explorer is not* a standard.* Sorry, but just looking at the logs from the various web servers I manage contradicts this. IE is the standard web browser. Oh, yeah, redefining the word "standard" to mean "what I'd like to be widespread" is another dirty rhetorical trick. The reason there is no Linux version [of IE] is because MS doesn't want to write a compatible version. Unless you are a high-level executive at Microsoft, I see no reason to believe this claim from you. Perhaps Linux is not technologically advanced enough to run IE? There are several Office suites available on Linux No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. Your rhetorical bag of tricks is running empty, eh? I can't be bothered to answer more than this fairly representative sample of your lies, distortions and strawmen. Hopefully this will be enough to deter any rational person from believing you.

	Get your facts straight (4.00 / 1) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:05:47 PM PST

	Your argument is specious. You have only a limited knowledge of the linux operating system. Let me show you: NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Those are all different versions of Microsoft Windows. Technically, Linux is only a kernel (the liason between the application and the hardware.) As such, you can't do much with just a kernel. You need applications on top of it and a suitable operating environment. Natually, there are numerous options available for the POSIX (UNIX and Linux-like) operating system. This is what marks the difference between the different distributions (not versions) of Linux. Mandrake has created a collection of applications and operating environments ON TOP OF the linux kernel. They are similiar, but it would not be entirely accurate to say that Red Hat, Slackware, etc are different version of the Linux Operating System. Sorry, but just looking at the logs from the various web servers I manage contradicts this. IE is* the standard web browser.* It is true that Internet Explorer is the most popular web browser in the world. As such, any web developer is going to make sure that his work is rendered correctly in IE. This is not to say that IE or Microsoft defines the standards. The standards are defined by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), an international organization devoted to standardizing HTML, CSS, DOM, and every other imaginiable aspect of the Web. So far, no browser is fully compliant with these standards. The closest I've seen is the Gecko-based browsers (Netscape 6, Mozilla, and Galeon.) IE6 supposedly supports both W3C standards as well as previous (non-W3C) code, and you can choose which mode to view in. No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. I really don't know what you were thinking when you wrote this. Of course Microsoft Office doesn't run on Linux (at least, when it's not emulating Windows) but to suggest that there are no alternatives is pure fallacy. StarOffice, KOffice, and various others are all perfectly acceptable substitutes for the vast majority of MS Office functions.

	*yawn* (5.00 / 1) (#53)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:34:54 PM PST

	Those are all different versions of Microsoft Windows. Technically, Linux is only a kernel (the liason between the application and the hardware.) As such, you can't do much with just a kernel. [more techno-babble deleted] In this paragraph you contradict what you said in the message I was replying to. How can I argue anything with you, if you are happy to claim different things at different times just to win the argument? It is true that Internet Explorer is the most popular web browser in the world. As such, any web developer is going to make sure that his work is rendered correctly in IE. This is not to say that IE or Microsoft defines the standards. This is doublespeak. Again, you are just redefining the word "standard" to suit you. I really don't know what you were thinking when you wrote this. Of course Microsoft Office doesn't run on Linux (at least, when it's not emulating Windows) but to suggest that there are no alternatives is pure fallacy. Here's what you said: There are several Office suites available on Linux Again, this is a false statement. You made particular reference to Office, which is a proper name which denotes a software product sold by Microsoft corporation. Since no form of Office runs on Linux, your statement was a plain falsehood, and my rebuttal stands.

	Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#80)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:27:36 PM PST

	Again, this is a false statement. You made particular reference to Office, which is a proper name which denotes a software product sold by Microsoft corporation. Since no form of Office runs on Linux, your statement was a plain falsehood, and my rebuttal stands. "Office" is used for defining a group Office Productivity Applications NOT a Microsoft Product! And most people refer to it as "MS Office" or "Microsoft Office". Also if I remeber correctly StarOffice (which runs on Linux & Windows amoung other platforms) was created in 1985 long before, MS Office became "Office"

	Here's a dime go buy a clue (none / 0) (#224)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:03:13 PM PST

	It's really, really sad to see someone defend their own ignorance in such a sad manor. Red Hat linux is made by Red Hat, Inc. (www.redhat.com) it is at version 7.1 Mandrake Linux is at very 8.1 and in made by MandrakeSoft (www.mandrake.com). SlackWare Linux is at version 8.0 (i think) and was made by Walnut Creek Software, but is now made by others (www.slackware.com). Linux is a commodity it is made by several _different_ companys (unlike windows which is made by only one). You reviewed the Mandrake _brand_ of linux. The comparison ot XP, ME, NT is fails completely on its face since linux is an entirely different brand of best. This gives you the ability to try out different versions if you don't like the service or direction of your current distrubution. There are office productivity suites availible for linux. KOffice, OpenOffice, HancomOffice and Corel Office are all examples. A quick search on "office for linux" on google would have cleared this up. Further, IE is not a standard in the IT sense of the word, while it is the most commonly used browser no standards commitee has blessed it as standard. All of this information is plainly availible from non-linux sites such as C\|Net, ZDNet and others. Please if you are going to review something, please take the time to research it. Your ignorance is alarming.

	Where can I buy a clue? (none / 0) (#263)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:49:11 AM PST

	Should I take the CLUETRAIN to the third street CLUESTATION, cross the CLUESTREET, using a CLUESTICK to aid my walking, enter the CLUESTORE and select my clue from the CLUERACK? Here's a better idea: I give you back your dime, and you use it to buy a less cliched phrase.

	Typical.... (none / 0) (#275)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:39:40 AM PST

	Rather than admit that the guy is wrong, I get attacked for using a cliche. This despite the phrase I used "Here's a dime, go buy a clue" being a quote (from Plucky Duck a character in Tiny Toons Adventure), not a cliche. None of the points addressed, no logic used... I think changing the catch phrase for this site is misleading. I've seen very few adults (and I'm not including my reaction to this...I must admit my reactions do not reflect my years) on this site. Just bickering on both sides.

	It's not just the cliche I take issue with (none / 0) (#286)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:55:17 AM PST

	It's the fact that you started your post off with a snide and insulting attack. This sort of thing is becoming all to common on adequacy lately, and I blame the influx of linux zealots, who have demonstrated the worst manners I have ever seen. The fact that your choice of insult demonstrated your plebian attitude was only a secondary consideration.

	typo: plebeian. Wouldn't want to look like one... (none / 0) (#287)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:00:27 AM PST

	would I?

	Why didn't you _say_ that? (none / 0) (#347)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:15:26 AM PST

	Hey, if you think I'm a plebian jerk, that's fine. I've been called much, much worse by people I respect much more than an anonymous coward on the internet. As for the "linux zealots", from reading this article and related comments I see: 1) A review is printed thrashing linux pretty soundly based on misunderstandings and just plain wrong "facts". 2) A group of people point out that the article is wrong. 3) A small portion of the readship here jumps down their throat, and re-stating their original (and mostly wrong) facts. 4) THEN, the people trying to correct the article (whom you blanketly declare to be linux zealots) get rude. It's all in how you look at it, I guess.

	Re: yawn (none / 0) (#290)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:06:37 AM PST

	Again, this is a false statement. You made particular reference to Office, which is a proper name which denotes a software product sold by Microsoft corporation. Since no form of Office runs on Linux, your statement was a plain falsehood, and my rebuttal stands. Does Microsoft own the rights to the word Office? No. I rest my case.

	you are quite ignorant (2.00 / 2) (#59)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:56:31 PM PST

	did you watch Shrek? or how about TITANIC? all the rendering was done with linux in Shrek. all the computer animated effects in TITANIC were done in Linux. ANY version of windows would not be able to handle the workload. and you have the nerve to think that Linux could not "handle" running Internet explorer?? hell, Linux can run the Windows98 desktop (OS) in a window and run Internet Explorer AND Office at the same time in win98 running in a linux window. don't get too confused now. LUCASFILM/ILM, DREAMWORKS, SONY PICTURES to name a few use LINUX, not MS products (they cannot handle the load) TiVO uses LINUX. THE SONY PLAYSTATION 2 uses LINUX!! get the picture? LINUX is versatle, portable, powerful. it is used in supercomputers all the way down to embedded devices. The NSA uses LINUX and contributes security patches to linux as well as having thier own Linux distribution The U.S. NAVY uses LINUX. they needed somthing more secure than Windows. So before I hear anything more about how UN-AMERICAN using Linux is remember, you accuse THE U.S. Military as well as the NSA and a bunch of U.S.Corporations. (this was for another poster) and when he said Office suit he didn't mean MS Office. an Office suit is a generic term NOT owned by Microsoft. Star office is an office suit OPEN OFFICE is an office suit, K OFFICE is an office suit. you are such an ingrained Microsoft user that you don't even know that other products exist. I bet that you are one of those people who asked if thier was a linux will run in windows. sheesh real_madpuppy@yahoo.com.removethis

	What do movies have to do with it? (4.00 / 2) (#63)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:04:03 PM PST

	did you watch Shrek? or how about TITANIC? No. I don't watch any Hollywood movies, they are all bad. I watch european cinema. I don't know anything about those movies. all the rendering was done with linux in Shrek. all the computer animated effects in TITANIC were done in Linux. ANY version of windows would not be able to handle the workload. Wrong. In the case of Titanic, the reason Linux was used was not because they couldn't have done it with Windows; it was because they were overbudget by the time they had to render, and couldn't afford to pay for the Windows licenses. If they had spent their money more wisely they would have chosen Windows. and you have the nerve to think that Linux could not "handle" running Internet explorer?? I have no more "nerve" than you with your bare assumption, born out of nothing but blind faith, that Linux could indeed run IE. I was merely pointing out that the original poster was not in a position to explain to us why Microsoft hasn't released that, since he doesn't have access to the company's decision process. As for the rest of your post, you seem to have not taken your medication today. Rational people don't launch into such incoherent, loosely held together rants when something ultimately as unimportant as computers is discussed.

	wait a min!!! (none / 0) (#108)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:17:53 PM PST

	last time I checked TITANIC wasn't european cinema. I have run IE in linux running win98. not blind faith, FACT. that fact that you consider ALL cinema but european "bad" is your opinion. Hollywood filmmakers NEVER used MS windows for high end rendering, they used SUN servers and SGI workstations, servers running Unix variants Solaris and IRIX now SGI uses Linux and SUN is using linux as well as thier own Unix. but, after all, what do I know I am just a mere public servent. compared to your high moral european standards how could I compare. oops, gotta' go take my medication. or I'm likely to have scary convoluted dreams comparable to european cinema.

	rendering for dummies (5.00 / 4) (#148)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:40:06 PM PST

	all the rendering was done with linux in Shrek. Yes but rendering is not very exciting. It looks like this: bash$ ./render rendering ... [2 weeks later] redered! bash$ view render.dat cannot view anything. Get Windows. bash$ edit render.dat cannot edit 3d artwork. Get Windows. bash$ emacs render.dat While emacs loads, please familiarize yourself with the following text. GNU is Free Software. When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. --More--(18%) Ctl-Alt-Del

	Oh what's the point ... (3.00 / 1) (#64)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:04:39 PM PST

	<cite>No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. Your rhetorical bag of tricks is running empty, eh?</cite> You mean - gasp, etc - that Star Office isn't an Office suite? You mean to tell me that KOffice isn't an Office Suite? You mean ... <cite>Frankly, this is easily among the most dishonest rhetorical devices I've seen.</cite> I agree - redefining Office to mean Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office only is one of the most dishonest rhetorical devices someone can use. And last but not least: <cite>Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Thus, your "correction" has the exact same content as the article! </cite> Windows 1.0 to WinME are successor version of a Graphics Shell (Windows) on top of a DOS kernel. In the earlier versions, DOS was the entire kernel. In the latest versions - Win98 onwards specifically - most of the kernel functions have been taken over after booting by the some of Windows' own code. Windows NT to Windows XP are successors to MS OS/2, built on the same original source code. Eg, you install Windows NT 3.51 by typing winnt in the i386 directory - you install windows 2k by typing the self-same command. You have to make the same choices for both in identical situations if you want identical setups. <b>I know this - I've done this.</b> Have you? Whereas Red Hat is a distribution of Linux published by the Red Hat company. Linux-Mandrake is a distribution of Linux published by the Linux-Mandrake company. Corel Linux was a distribution of Linux published by the Corel company. Debian is a distribution of Linux published by a group of individuals connected via the Internet. I could go on ... but what's the point. Dumber and dumber is the message I'm getting from the Microsoft Taleban on this web site. Wes

	This only strenghtens my argument. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:17:26 PM PST

	You mean - gasp, etc - that Star Office isn't an Office suite? You mean to tell me that KOffice isn't an Office Suite? You mean ... Exactly. None of those are Office suites. (They are office suites, but that's not what the original poster claimed.) I agree - redefining Office to mean Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office only is one of the most dishonest rhetorical devices someone can use. But "Office" (with the capital letter) does mean Microsoft Office. [lots of techno-babble about versions of Linux and versions of Windows deleted] Since all this contradicts the original post I replied to, it only strengthens my argument.

	only strenghtens my argument - Yeah, right (3.00 / 1) (#173)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:16:53 AM PST

	<cite>[lots of techno-babble about versions of Linux and versions of Windows deleted]</cite> <cite>Since all this contradicts the original post I replied to, it only strengthens my argument.</cite> Since you don't care to answer the points I raised about either the Windows 1.0 to WinME family or the Windows NT to Windows XP family I presume that means you haven't got all that much experience of any of those operating systems. Let alone installing them. Let alone the meaning of the word "distribution" in the Linux world. And technobabble - you mean to tell me you are quite content to enter into a heated discussion with people on a subject you know next-to-nothing about? I'm not that arrogant.

	Distribution (none / 0) (#291)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:21:47 AM PST

	What is meant by distribution? Let me use a non-computer example for this. Let's think of fast food. You have McDonalds, Burger King, etc. Both of them produce hamburgers. However, they are different because different companies produce them. A distribution is basically a flavor of Linux. MandrakeSoft is one company that makes Linux-based operating systems. Their Linux is geared towards the newbie, and the home user. It is a flavor for people just getting into it, and for people who want to do things like surf the Internet, play mp3s, play Quake, etc. Another distribution is RedHat. This company makes Linux geared mainly for servers, offices, business use. They have several office suites, ftp, just about any business product that you use. Debian is another distribution. This one, however, is the GNU distribution. It is geared for "true believers" and hackers (hacker in the sense of computer experts, not in the sense of breaking into other computers). This is basically difficult to use, but makes up for it by being VERY customizable. There are countless distros around. I would say that RedHat is more like the Big Mac from McDonalds, Mandrake is the Whopper from Burder King, and Debian is a fancy burger from some high priced restaurant. In a nutshell, distros are made by different companies, and are entirely separate from other distributions. Distributions have their own versions. So while Mandrake and RedHat are technically the same OS, they are produced by entirely different companies, and are in competition with each other, the same way MS Office is in competition with Corel Office.

	no it doesn't (1.00 / 1) (#178)
	by jcolter on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:43:50 AM PST

	Something contradicts something you replied to = strengthening your argument. Now that is logic! this is just painful

	Um, to nitpick (3.00 / 1) (#144)
	by amishjosh on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:24:36 PM PST

	How does this differ from what the article says: Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Thus, your "correction" has the exact same content as the article! Versions do not equal distributions! Different companies have released different distrobutions. They have released versions of these distributions. Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1 to 7.2 to 8.0 ad infinitum. Windows 3.0 to 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 98B to ME to XP home edition. Windows NT 3.5 to 4.0 to 2000 to XP professional edition. The only difference is that microsoft has released the windows operationg systems, and other companies have released their own distributions of Linux. Sorry, but just looking at the logs from the various web servers I manage contradicts this. IE is the standard web browser It is an ad hoc standard. Noone except Microsoft has stated that it was a full standard. Unless you are a high-level executive at Microsoft, I see no reason to believe this claim from you. Perhaps Linux is not technologically advanced enough to run IE? As has been stated before, unless you are a programmer, you wouldn't understand the explanation of libraries, calls, API's and compilation. The main business reason they don't is because that would be supporting their rival. If they ported IE over to linux, then they would be giving people one more reason to use linux on the desktop. No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. Your rhetorical bag of tricks is running empty, eh? Office suites do not equal microsoft office. Microsoft office is an office suite, but it is not the be-all, end-all of office suites. StarOffice is an office suite that was designed for linux.

	Re: Please don't bring propaganda here. (none / 0) (#289)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:04:01 AM PST

	We are not bringing propaganda here. We are bringing knowledge about Linux. There are major differences between Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. First of all, let me tell you that Linux is not Windows, not even close. The Linux philosophy is ENTIRELY different from Microsoft philosophy. You are very full of FUD. I was once a person that spread FUD, but then I realized that I liked the Linux philosophy better. As for your first comment, you need to realize that Red Hat, Debian, SlackWare, and Mandrake are not "versions". They are all different companies that produce their own version of Linux. Go to www.linux-mandrake.com and www.redhat.com, and unless you are blind or utterly stupid, this will be obvious. Mandrake has versions 6.0, 6.2, 7.0. 7.1, 7.2, 8.0, and now 8.1. Redhat has versions running up tp 7.1 Redhat and Mandrake are similar, but they are produced by two entirely different companies. Besides, if you want to know what version of Linux you are really using, look at the version of the Kernel. The latest version of Linux is 2.4.10. Mandrake, Redhat, and other distributions are suites. They are software packages. Internet Explorer is currently the de-facto standard web browser. And he is right. Microsoft does NOT want to create IE for Linux. Just in case you haven't noticed, M$ declared a holy war against Linux. And if you doubt that Linux is advanced enough, I CHALLENGE you to try the Konqueror and Mozilla and Opera web browsers for Linux. And also, Netscape 6.1 is available for Linux. Linux is definitely advanced enough to run IE. Not only that, but I can do anything on my Linux system that I can on Windows. I can play Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, mp3s, video, you name, and I am doing it on Linux. No Office? Microsoft is NOT the Alpha and the Omega of office! Maybe you should try Star Office 5.2. It is available for both Windows AND Linux. http://www.sun.com/products/staroffice/ It is a free download. Try it! You might be impressed!! You have a lot of misinformation about Linux, and that is understandable. Microsoft has been spreading so much false propaganda that almost every software organization has blasted them. Yes, I am a Linux evangelist. Do I think Linux is a better system? Yes. But the choice is up to you. I do not care what OS you like. Many people tried Linux, and decided that they wanted to stay with Windows. But what I AM against is the spread of entirely false information, and that is what this comment is about. So for all of you who have "preconceptions" about Linux, I CHALLENGE you to try it. If you have about 5 GBs left on your HD, you can install Linux on it. There are many distributions, but I would recommend Mandrake because you would be total newbies. The OS costs only $20 when you buy it at the store. The OS is free (as in free beer) when you download it, but I would advise against this unless you have a broadband (cable, DSL, Satellite, T1, T3) Internet connection. You can burn the ISOs on CDs. And best of all, you can easily have Linux and Windows on the same machine. I run a dual boot OS. You can have both on the same HD, or better, you can easily buy a new HD and install Linux on that. So this is a challenge to those who hate Linux. Give it a try.

	Change the title of this article (1.00 / 2) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:12:15 PM PST

	This isnt a review of Linux Mandrake 8.1. This is an article about linux bashing and the facts are so wrong, the article actually needs to be pulled. The author of this article must be some kind of idiot.

	Sorry Mandrake didn't work out for you. (1.00 / 1) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:31:31 PM PST

	I was unaware that Mandrake had hardware requirements of a pentium and 32meg of ram, but to be honest if you were reviewing MS XP os would you do that on your old gateway 486? I'm a linux fan, and I 'waste' a lot of time learning about my computer. To me open source, means the opportunity for a greater understanding. While the code is free, it certainly costs me a great deal in time. As someone else pointed out, the reason that the commercial applications the reviewer mentioned (IE, Office and some firewall package) aren't available on linux, is because their owners choose not to make them available. Apple Mac owners have struggled with the same thing. I suspect we'll see most Linux users will have a moderate response to this article. Linux is out there, and for a lot of users it works just fine. If people choose not to use it, that's fine too. Yes you need a bit more knowledge to use it, because it has historically used by a market which had above average computer literacy. I personally wouldn't recommend linux for any of my friend who describe themselves as 'computer dummies'. Not yet anyway! This post is anonymous, not because I want to be anonymous, but because I don't see the need to register with Adequacy.org. I can be reached as 'david.maslen' on the 'iname.org' mail server.

	Re: Sorry Mandrake didn't work out for you. (none / 0) (#261)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:36:16 AM PST

	<< I was unaware that Mandrake had hardware requirements of a pentium and 32meg of ram, but to be honest if you were reviewing MS XP os would you do that on your old gateway 486? ?? Yeah, Mandrake is specifically compiled and built for Pentium class (and higher) CPU's. It is one of the few with most others supporting the 386 and 486. For the record, I have installed and run Mandrake 8.1. I enjoy it and think it is one of the better distributions out there (just my opinion of course). I enjoy looking for better ways to do things and ultimately this leads to readings some documentation. Anybody, no matter what the chosen OS, that wants to get sthe most out of their system or take their knowledge further must ultimately read the topic in depth. Just my 2 cents worth. Craig

	This comming from a site running Apache + Scoop (2.00 / 4) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:37:47 PM PST

	I find this really funny, how this author does not like Linux and tells us how much better Windows is, when in fact he would not be able to express such views was it not for free software. The site is powered by Scoop, go read the license. GPL... Maybe they run it on NT/2000 (don't know if that is possible). Well lets se what webserver they use. Well netcraft.com won't tell, hum okay there are other ways lets se... telnet www.adequacy.org 80 GET HTTP/1.1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>400 Bad Request</TITLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>Bad Request</H1> Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.<P> Invalid URI in request GET HTTP/1.1<P> <HR> <ADDRESS>Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80</ADDRESS> </BODY></HTML> Connection closed by foreign host. Uhh what is this running the Apache webserver ... does MS know about this. (www.apache.org) Oh and about the no anti-virus software, because there are no viriis for UNIX/Linux, and you know what Mandrake comes with a firewall already, but since you don't know how to install it you newer found out. Well Linux is not for everybody I guess, but please get the facts right next time.

	I'm not sure I approve of this (4.50 / 4) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:10:14 PM PST

	I'd say the adequacy admins probably aren't too happy about people hacking into their servers. Maybe you should respect other peoples property, and privacy.

	Hacking?! (1.00 / 3) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:20:42 PM PST

	I'd say the adequacy admins probably aren't too happy about people hacking into their servers. Maybe you should respect other peoples property, and privacy. I would like to point out that the action in question is not hacking, nor is it breaching any sort of security, nor is it compromising any system of any kind. Rather, it is obtaining a signature from the server. The server is gladly providing an indication that it is indeed an Apache server. No hacking, just looking.

	I've heard this before (4.75 / 4) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:32:33 PM PST

	From every l33t script kiddie who likes to go around "testing" people's security. You used an internet resource contrary to the way it was intended. That sounds like hacking to me. Your schoolboy's excuse isn't fooling anyone.

	Innocuous Action (2.00 / 2) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:02:08 PM PST

	You are correct in he is accessing the server in an unconventional way. It is also true that destructive hackers (not to be confused with legitimate ones) often precede an attack with probes of various kinds in order to obtain as much exploitable information as possible. However, I think it is plain to me (and to everybody else) that this action is not a precursor to an attack. Rather it obtaining a web server signature as evidence for an argument. I sincerely doubt that adequacy.org is going to sic their lawyers on him for obtaining something that is prominently displayed in the HTTP response. On a side note, as an apache administrator, I know that you can even turn off the server signature if you like. Adequacy.org chose not to do so, probably because they realize that it is a minor security hazard.

	We are talking to our lawyers indeed. (5.00 / 5) (#70)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:12:53 PM PST

	I sincerely doubt that adequacy.org is going to sic their lawyers on him for obtaining something that is prominently displayed in the HTTP response. As an editor here, I must say that tomorrow indeed we're talking to our lawyers. As you have said, HTTP is a protocol whose design criteria is communication between HTTP servers and clients, not between servers and nosy users. The information in the headers, thus, is provided for the benefit of the web browser, not the user, who has no authorization to access it; this is just like with a DVD, where there are restrictions on what you can do with the information on the disc beyond those which hardware imposes. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	interesting netcraft reply (2.00 / 2) (#99)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:01:19 PM PST

	what do you have to hide? www.netcraft.org came back with this search result when I put your address in. "We have been requested not to report on the site www.adequacy.org" you apparently don't want anybody to know what kind of OS OR server you are running. that is just a little bizarre. you have a poorly researched article about how bad and useless Linux is and by association Open Source Software, BUT! you run an Open Source WEB SERVER!! A news site should be HONEST with its readers. this is discusting. real_madpuppy@yahoo.com.removethis

	security... (3.50 / 2) (#130)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:56:10 PM PST

	You obviously do not know anything about security. If everyone knew what kind of an operating system that a server is running then script kiddies would try to hax0r it all day long. I suppose if it was left up to you the password would be posted on the front page as well??? This is exactly the type of attitude that makes Linux software not as secure as its Microsoft counterparts.

	To Gospodin Lysenko (2.00 / 2) (#155)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:32:28 PM PST

	<cite>If everyone knew what kind of an operating system that a server is running then script kiddies would try to hax0r it all day long.</cite> You mean they don't? Already? At their stage of psychological development, anything's worth it. Anyone can find out what sort of operating system someone's running, with a little digging. It's not that difficult. Most operating systems have some sort of digital signature that is in their executables. <cite>This is exactly the type of attitude that makes Linux software not as secure as its Microsoft counterparts.</cite> I see. You're an expert on security now. You know all the holes in Linux's source code, I take it. You know Microsoft's source code back to front and can quote me chapter and verse. You know why a buffer overflow is dangerous and how to deal with that. You know why an open review process might work with keeping politicians passably honest, but of course it won't work when we're dealing with software - or science of course ... Nice to meet you, Gospodin Lysenko.

	If you had any knowledge of Russian or history... (4.00 / 1) (#162)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:39:02 PM PST

	... then you would know that "gospodin" ("mister") would not be the correct way to address Lysenko, a member of the party and an solid champion of the motherland. The correct way would be to refer to him as "tovarisch" ("comrade"). It is only within the last decade that "gospodin" has been used to refer to anyone other than foreigners.

	That aint security (1.00 / 1) (#465)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 09:20:55 PM PST

	Someone actually capable of hacking into a remote system wouldn't give a shit about the web server or OS version as reported in easily to access, standard forms, like the web server signature, or the telnet login message. They'd use TCP/IP packet signatures, or something of the sort...in which both Linux and FreeBSD are unidentifiable due to their advanced randomization algorithms...but in which Windows NT hosts simply increment each time, making hacking a breeze.

	Nope (2.00 / 2) (#104)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:09:01 PM PST

	From RFC-2616 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 user agent The client which initiates a request. These are often browsers, editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user tools. Telnet would certainly qualify as a "end user tool". I also don't see anything in the RFC which says the headers are a big secret. But you were joking anyway, right?

	That action specifically violates our TOS. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:20:18 PM PST

	Telnet would certainly qualify as a "end user tool". I also don't see anything in the RFC which says the headers are a big secret. The RFC is not a legal document. Anyway, that action specifcially violates our Terms of Service. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Availability (none / 0) (#117)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:31:42 PM PST

	I did not try to connect to your site. But. Maybe you should make it available. I don't see a single link on this page. I invite a flame. ;-)

	The old TOS trick, huh? (1.00 / 2) (#119)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:34:43 PM PST

	Aha...so we're going to play the legal game. Well, it clearly states in Adequacy.org's Terms of Service: Adequacy.org gives permission for its servers to be accessed by any program specifically designed to be a legitimate HTTP client, by mail transport agents legitimately transporting email relevant to the site. Any other means of accessing Adequacy.org, including, but not limited to, telnet access to any port, port scans, and such, are not allowed, and constitute unauthorized access (a.k.a. "hacking"). I think it's pretty clear that using telnet to get the HTTP header violates this agreement. Wait a minute, did I say agreement? I didn't agree to anything. Lemme take a look here...Scrolls through front page, article page, etc. I don't see anything in here saying anything about Terms of Service. How am I supposed to abide by it if I can't even find it? Usually there's some very fine print at the bottom saying something like "By accessing this site, you agree to our Terms of Service" Maybe I missed it. Can somebody point it out to me?

	Sure! (3.00 / 2) (#133)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:01:51 PM PST

	It's on the meta page. You know, the one which nothing on the front page tells you you need to read before accessing the site... ;)

	Interesting. (1.00 / 1) (#121)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:35:55 PM PST

	From your T&C: Adequacy.org gives permission for its servers to be accessed by any program specifically designed to be a legitimate HTTP client, by mail transport agents legitimately transporting email relevant to the site. Any other means of accessing Adequacy.org, including, but not limited to, telnet access to any port, port scans, and such, are not allowed, and constitute unauthorized access (a.k.a. "hacking"). Interesting. Care to give a legally enforceable definition of a legitimate HTTP client? I believe that Emacs can browse the web (if it doesn't yet, I'm sure somebody working on it...) but Emacs wasn't really specifically designed to be a HTTP client, so I guess I couldn't surf your site with it... ;)

	Non-issue. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:39:11 PM PST

	I believe that Emacs can browse the web (if it doesn't yet, I'm sure somebody working on it...) but Emacs wasn't really specifically designed to be a HTTP client, so I guess I couldn't surf your site with it... ;) The w3 mode for Emacs was specifically designed to browse the web. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	To be pedantic... (3.00 / 1) (#129)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:54:53 PM PST

	To be pedantic, your T&C does not authorise programs which have functionality explicitly designed to act as a HTTP client. It ONLY authorises a "program SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED" to act as an HTTP client - Emacs itself was not specifically designed to act as an HTTP client anymore than Word was. It's a subtle distinction. But I'm not a lawyer, and this is getting to be a silly conversation ;)

	Nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:01:46 PM PST

	The emacs w3 mode is code specifically designed to work as an http client. Telnet isn't. That's all that counts. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Then why can't I use telnet? (2.00 / 1) (#139)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:13:11 PM PST

	Then why can't I use telnet? If I care to read the HTML in its raw form, then I can use it to read your site. All IE and like do is the same thing that telnet does, just with pretty interface..

	Nonsense? Nonsense! (2.00 / 1) (#140)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:13:39 PM PST

	So, if you don't have a problem with ANY program that has ANY functionality that serves as an HTTP client, I could modify a telnet program to act as an HTTP client and you'd not have a problem with it? Cool.

	Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. (none / 0) (#355)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 12:54:39 PM PST

	Let me enlighten you on just 1 fact that you fail to realize. Most of the applications used over any network connection, such as HTTP, SMTP etc, are all telnet based. Have a nice day.

	Linux users: (none / 0) (#425)
	by venalcolony on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:36:09 PM PST

	are as dumb as they think they are smart. You know that old saw about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing? It's magnified a hundredfold by access to modern computing machinery. Have an ignorant day, as if you had a choice. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	Linux users == dumb? (none / 0) (#561)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 04:12:13 AM PST

	According to you, simply because I don't use windows, I'm dumb. Right? Then who exactly is dumb? You're weird.

	Who needs telnet? (1.00 / 1) (#182)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 02:52:22 AM PST

	I just typed the following in my legitimate HTTP client: (netscape) http://www.adequacy.org/../ and I got ___________________________ Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. Invalid URI in request GET /../ HTTP/1.0 Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80 ____________________________ I think you have to ban my IP now. Terribly sorry. ROTFL....

	Oh no, now you're a criminal! (none / 0) (#183)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:31:45 AM PST

	Actually, by intentionally mistyping a non-existent and thus unauthorized URL pointing to the particular server, you have violated about 4.67e8 ULAs and TOSs, and should therefore be considered a criminal herefrom. You will most probably be brought before court soon, and you will have to pay dearly for your terrorist activities. Free Speech? What Free? What Speech? Apollon Koutlides

	You idiot (none / 0) (#272)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:05:22 AM PST

	Those TOSs are complete fabrications, devised by the adequacy editors, and not legally binding. IANAL, but I'm certain that if I were I'd be able to assess the legality of those TOSs and find it illigitimite. So I'm certain that nobody could possibly be going to court. OK? No need to get so worked up.

	IE (none / 0) (#559)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 05:40:40 AM PST

	I tried the same with Internet Explorer 6.0 and got the same result. I suppose IE6 should be banned as well?

	Apache (1.00 / 1) (#216)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:44:20 AM PST

	> lynx --head --dump http://adequacy.org Looking up 'www.wam.umd.edu' first. HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:40:58 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 Set-Cookie: session=45a855c6fd0496a7482b18f2cc415011;expires=Wed, 31 Oct 2001 1 0:40:58 GMT;path=/;domain=.adequacy.org Content-Length: 41658 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html lynx is a legal web browser

	lynx is NOT a legal web browser (5.00 / 3) (#233)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:30:09 PM PST

	If lynx isn't already illegal, then it should be. By using Lynx, you are stealing bandwidth from webservers like ours without viewing the banner ads that help keep the site going. In refusing to load our ads, you are doing more than just spitting on the capitalist institutions our nation was founded on; you're spitting stabbing every American veteran or firefighter in the back. People like you make me sick.

	You're kidding I hope. (1.00 / 1) (#238)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:03:57 PM PST

	Lynx is a console based web browser. It is incapable of displaying graphics (including ads) becuase of the environment it runs in. That is in no way a reason to question the program's legality. When I am remotely logged into my Linux box (using ssh, which is basically an encrypted telnet-like connection (which is a completely legal use of my computing resources)), I am only able to use Linux in console mode. If I need to look up something on the web, be it documentation or a news posting or whatever, the only program I can use is lynx. There is nothing illegal about my use of a web browser to access publicly accessible web pages, even if I can't load images. If displaying ads is so important to the livelihood of this website, it's administrators should look into text based ads. What you are all are failing to realize is that Telnet, SSH, lynx, box cutters, etc. are all tools that can be used for legitimate as well as illigitimate uses. Even your beloved IE can be used to exploit back doors installed on computers by the Code Red II virus. I'll patiently wait for a reply saying that all the tools listed should be illegalized. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	Capitailism and Vets? (5.00 / 1) (#298)
	by Rover on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:34:41 AM PST

	I am unsure as to what this is even about. I am a retired soldier and spent my life as a member of the U.S. Army. I have played in the Southeast Asian wargames, the drug wars of Peru, Panama, and god knows how many other places. I did so to give people like you the freedom to say anything that they might feel the need to say (even if it was total ignorance). This republic we live in (And to the Republic for which it stands. (note does not say Democracy)) was based on freedoms. As a soldier that premise is all that matters. Based on that I would like to know what Capitalisim has to do with anything. I do not understand how attempting to give the people the freedom of manipulating a piece of software to conform it to standards they may specifically require undermines the basis of the Constitution. It is all about freedom. Capitalism has nothing to do with what I as a soldier stood (and stand) for with the possible exception that you should have the freedom to be part of it if you choose to do so. I personally believe that capitalisim is nothing more than the greed of others using what ever it is that they may have at their disposal taking away the rights of others to further their own gains. Now at what point do you percieve the removal of rights to be furthering your freedoms. I do not see any accuracy to your statement. To say that undermining capitalisim is stomping on a Vet or Fireman is truely ignorant. The soldier is there to preserve your freedom not to find new ways to remove it. Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom and it damn well had nothing to do with the reasons for founding this great country we live in. P.S. I also find Linux to be the better and more stable OS but as a soldier I give you the freedom to choose if it or something else is best for you.

	Jeez what a rectal cranial inversion in action (1.00 / 1) (#468)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 08:44:54 AM PST

	This is just amazing. I have never seen more idiocy on the part of IN-adequacy.org - I think you should be fingered severely until you give out name rank and serial number, what a bunch of complete and utter asses.

	POW"S (5.00 / 1) (#480)
	by Rover on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 08:23:41 AM PST

	When I was a POW the Geneva Convention dictated that I only give out my Name,Rank, Serial Number And Date of Birth and I did so. Unless you have in some fashion found a way to make me a POW in my own country I do not feel the need nor the requirement to give said information to you. It is truely sad that the soldiers that defend (and those such as myself who spent their lives defending) this great country of ours, did so so that ass holes such as you could spout such shit. If it were not for us you would not have the capability to talk such trash. Also take note that my handle is stated above and you have access to pull my information if you feel the need to contact me on a personal basis more than can be said for an ANON Chicken shit like you . Lets see how much guts you have next time you spout shit Identify yourself. Bring it on Ass Hole.

	Very shortsighted. If it's serious. (1.00 / 1) (#445)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 03:07:32 PM PST

	I'm half convinced that this post is a joke, but I'm going to respond to it anyways. For one, it needs to be known that people do not use Lynx exclusively to skip banner ads. People typically use Lynx whenever other alternatives are not available. THIS CAN BE THE CASE, AND STILL IS FOR MANY PEOPLE. And telling them to "go upgrade" is not always an option; in the case of one couple I know who has to use a 'shell account' (a 'net connection of a type that limits you to Lynx and similar text-only browsers), no other internet services are offered that are available to them. For my other point... capitalisim fetishists always hate me for pointing this next bit out, but America was not founded on Capitalism. The Founding Fathers, for the most part, were people with heavy backgrounds in scientific thought (not just Benjamin Franklin; many of them were) and advocates of learning and public sharing of information. Pure capitalism tends to induce eventual totalitarian domination over those under same, and the Founding Fathers did not want that - they were trying to get OUT from such a system and PREVENT one from happening again. Encouraging thoughts similar to Capitalism and other means of driving the individual to excel is just a means of keeping the populace educated so they can make smart decisions when it comes to participating in their government, nothing more. (Disclaimer: I am not a socialist. I am not a Marxist-Leninist. I am not a capitalist. I am not anything resembling any of these. I do not subscribe to any 'pure' economic theory, because no economic theory has ever survived contact with the market.)

	you fool (none / 0) (#543)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 01:41:10 PM PST

	does this mean that blind people aren't allowed access to your site? you complete idiot

	HA HA HA!!!! (1.00 / 2) (#167)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:10:45 AM PST

	The terms of service are a complete riot!!!!! For the record, I am the guy who alerted em to the fact that wget can show full headers. (S)He(?) obviously missed my point: a valid http client will ALWAYS get the headers. It's just a question of if they will display them easily or not. The fact that a TOS can be changed so quickly does not tend to give it credence. I don't think anyone is going to take it seriously.

	neither... (1.00 / 1) (#314)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:14:40 PM PST

	Neither are your terms and conditions.

	What a load of shit! (1.00 / 1) (#305)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:51:03 PM PST

	Add me to the list of `hackers'. Here's proof I've done the dirty deed of telneting to port 80. Enjoy! HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:49:45 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 170 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>400 Bad Request</TITLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>Bad Request</H1> Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.<P> client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /<P> <HR> <ADDRESS>Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80</ADDRESS> </BODY></HTML> -awpti awpti@awpti.org http://www.awpti.org

	LOL (none / 0) (#307)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:02:24 PM PST

	Hack the Planet! :P

	Not Funny (5.00 / 1) (#309)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:51:36 PM PST

	I'm sure you hackers think you're funny for supporting the open source movement by hacking web sites that have opposing opinions. I also believe you guys are correct that Adequacy.org is using an Apache server. Only an open source product would be so easily hacked, especially when the creators purposely insert backholes knowing that the non-hacking Linux community will believe the propaganda of Linux Torvald that he and his commie hackers made the software secure without any backdoors. This will do great for Linux's PR as a secure user friendly OS. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	On the contrary... (none / 0) (#311)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:40:49 PM PST

	Only an open source product would be so easily hacked. You are confused. IIS is by the far the easier to hack, and that's a Microsoft product. Don't take my word for it, ask The Register

	Technology Tabloid (none / 0) (#315)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:24:34 PM PST

	Nobody in the industry takes the register seriously. I wouldn't have thought that you could apply sensationalist journalism to computters, but they have been proving me wrong for years. The register is no more a news source than slashdot is. The fact that you take them seriously indicates that you are a dilletante.

	Dillettante? (none / 0) (#323)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:07:59 PM PST

	Dilletante? "A person who loves the arts"? Why yes, actually I am. Thank you so very much for noticing. Oh, wait, were you thinking of the other definition? But I have a question... where did I ever say I took the Register seriously? FWIW, I am in the "industry", So are the other people I work with. We quite enjoy the Register, it gives us a chuckle or two. I am quite impressed, though. It must have taken you an age to poll EVERYBODY in the industry, to ensure that NOBODY takes it seriously. Or are you just "inventing" facts... much like the guy who wrote the original article?

	Yes, of course I mean the other definition (none / 0) (#330)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 11:24:02 PM PST

	Since I actually speak english as it is used this century, not as it is presented in your ninety year old free version of websters. Your definition is archaic. Obviously you take the register seriously, since you offer it as a source of information. The only people who consider the register a useful source of information are those who share the same bias as the registers "journalists". Having had personal dealings with one of the hacks who writes for them, I can assure you that the ideas of research and fact-checking, as exemplified on this site have not been introduced at the register. By the way, studying comp sci at your state college, using linux, writing perl and posting to slashdot does not make you part of the industry.

	Archaic? (none / 0) (#349)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:23:01 AM PST

	Well, I speak English as it is spoken in England. You know, the country that originated it? My "ninety year old free version of websters" was in fact the Collins Shorter English Dictionary, 1993 edition. Just on the off-chance that the weird variant of English you purportedly use considers an "archaic" definition to be one only eight years old, I checked my other dictionary. This year's OED. Oddly, it doesn't seem to consider it archaic either. How wacky. "Obviously" I take it seriously if I offer it as a source of information? If I'd suggested that you look at User Friendly would that mean that I take User Friendly seriously? Please. Offering a link does NOT mean I take it seriously. Oh, I'm sorry, did I forget an emoticon? How terribly remiss of me. By the way, studying comp sci at your state college, using linux, writing perl and posting to slashdot does not make you part of the industry. I'll take your word for that. However, since I've been working in the quite sizeable IT division of a major UK financial institution for the past 14 years I couldn't really say. I work as an Oracle and Teradata DBA and use UNIX, not Linux. I don't write Perl. I don't post to Slashdot (well, OK... once or twice in the past two years). If that isn't "industry" enough for you... Well, too bad really. I won't lose any sleep over it.

	OK then (none / 0) (#376)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:37:41 PM PST

	So you were offering the register link as a joke? Thia changes everything. Evidently that entire post was sarcastic, which would mean that you are in total agreement with me about IIS vs apache. Good.

	Fuck Off (none / 0) (#383)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:19:36 PM PST

	All I have to say is Code Red... ~Solo

	So? (none / 0) (#396)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 04:04:17 AM PST

	When the Morris worm attacked the internet, the net went down. At the time, the net was composed almost entirely of unix servers. Code Red didn't cause anywhere near as much damage. Conclusion: the web is more stable running IIS.

	Speaking of The Morris Worm (3.00 / 2) (#400)
	by Solo on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:44:12 AM PST

	It is good that you are a History Buff, to remember the Morris Worm is a good thing, In fact we learned from it right? Oh, wait, how did it attack again, oh yea "buffer overflow". Wait that sounds rather familar, lets think what else attacked that way? It wasn't Code Red was it? Um, shouldn't IIS have patched a flaw that has been exploited back in 1988... Bet Unix did.

	Another thing (1.00 / 1) (#403)
	by jiminim on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:15:33 AM PST

	Virii must be targeted to particular software on particular hardware and that is why it is BAD for everyone to be running the exact same software on the same hardware. For instance a worm written for Solaris 8 on Sparc is not even going to bother systems running Linux on Sparcs, Solaris on i386's, or Win 2K on i386 except for maybe taking up bandwidth. The Morris worm only affected DEC's VAX and Sun Microsystems's Sun 3 systems. The bad thing was though in 1988 VAX's and Sun 3's made up almost the entire internet so it pretty much took the internet out. If "Wintel" achieve their goal of everyone running some kind of Windows on some kind of i386, the internet is doomed. There has to be some varity or one worm could take everything out. Jim -- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

	Oh, have they? (3.00 / 2) (#423)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:32:40 PM PST

	Considering a new buffer overflow is found in the linux kernel every month, I'd say your reasoning is pretty specious. At least windows doesn't have that problem, since they aren't stupid enough to release their code and let hackers look for bugs. Your little communist free software fantasy world is about to fall apart, by the way. I took a look at netcraft, and it seems that IIS just took a huge bite out of apache's market share. Looks like this "apache runs the internet" crap is about to become as obsolete as a 30 year old operating system design.

	I Agree (3.00 / 2) (#431)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:21:22 PM PST

	I agree not releasing the windows source code is the smarter thing to do, I mean if we all found bugs in windows source and fixed them it actually might work.

	LINUX = Communist (3.00 / 2) (#435)
	by Solo on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:58:08 AM PST

	Why is Linux considered communist, because there are a lot of American Companies that use Linux. Lets see here NASA for one, I'm sure they are communist, fucking Red Bastards... Hmm, how about ILM, Industrial Light and Magic, That is Lucas Arts for you dumb asses out there. I'm sure that the best computer graphics company in the world, based in Amereica, is Communist. I'm sure that Georege pays all of his Secretaries the same that he pays his high level peogramers. Then there is IBM, the cornerstone of Capitalism, oh wait they use Linux fucking commies, You logic sucks cock. How can using an Operating system make you a communist.

	The Red in Red Hat Is for Communism (3.66 / 3) (#439)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:37:43 AM PST

	I think the fact that Red Hat's named Red Hat is proof that Linux is communist. As we all know, red is the color of communism. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Anti-Logic (1.00 / 1) (#446)
	by jiminim on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 03:27:37 PM PST

	So anything that makes use of 'red' is a communist? That makes sense. Maybe now you should start a movement to get that damn commie color out of the American flag. Can't have other countries thinking the USA is communist now can we? -Jim -- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

	How about the Gartner group then? (none / 0) (#373)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:23:13 PM PST

	http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034 -Max

	STOP IT (none / 0) (#338)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:25:09 AM PST

	Cant you all see that this is all just a bunch of crap. anyone who really thinks that accesing a website with lynx is illegal is obviously just messing with you guys I hope

	heh (0.50 / 2) (#306)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:00:27 PM PST

	"I'm sorry sir, but your going to have to package up your computer and return it" "Its that bad is it?" "Yes, I'm afraid so." "Why?" "Because your too bloody stupid to own a computer!"

	In the mean time... (1.00 / 1) (#370)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:58:55 PM PST

	>As an editor here, I must say that tomorrow indeed we're talking to our lawyers. As you have said, HTTP is a protocol whose design criteria is communication between HTTP servers and clients, not between servers and nosy users. The information in the headers, thus, is provided for the benefit of the web browser, not the user, who has no authorization to access it; this is just like with a DVD, where there are restrictions on what you can do with the information on the disc beyond those which hardware imposes. --em (Associate Editor, Adequacy.org)< Will you also be talking to your "lawyers" about this comment from one of your "editors?" "Additionally, since we are not using voting, I've hacked something on to the voting system." Apparently your site is harboring a self professed "hacker" as per: http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/5/2653/23335 Scoop is OSS isn't it? Isn't that threatening freedom according to "otak?" (Lame site guys, lame site)

	You fool (1.00 / 1) (#474)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 07:20:39 AM PST

	I strongly advise you to go and inform yourself before expressing an opinion on anything technological. You are not currently fit to hold or express an opinion on anything more complex or advanced than an Etch-a-Sketch. 'News for Grown-ups' indeed - don't make me laugh.

	plainly specious (3.00 / 1) (#74)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:20:16 PM PST

	However, I think it is plain to me (and to everybody else) that this action is not a precursor to an attack. Rather it obtaining a web server signature as evidence for an argument. This is tantamount to saying Dmitri Sklyarov hacked Adobe's copyright-protection scheme as an academic proof-of-concept exercise. It doesn't matter what the intentions of the transgressor were. What matters is the damage wreaked upon the victim by the transgressor's plainly illegal acts. These people should get the death penalty, if you ask me.

	Different Worlds (3.00 / 1) (#88)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:33:27 PM PST

	This is tantamount to saying Dmitri Sklyarov hacked Adobe's copyright-protection scheme as an academic proof-of-concept exercise. To suggest that obtaining an HTTP server signature is of the same degree as breaking a cryptographic scheme to expose copyrighted material is completely inaccurate. Under the DMCA, it is illegal to circumvent copy-protection of copyrighted material. That's a far cry from looking at the server's signature. What matters is the damage wreaked upon the victim by the transgressor's plainly illegal acts. Damage? What damage? That signature is spewed out thousands of times an hour. No damage is being done, the server's doing what it should. These people should get the death penalty, if you ask me. You're absolutely right. After all, they're just as bad as serial killers and child rapists.

	DUDE!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#67)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:10:50 PM PST

	It is NOT hacking. Stop being a moron already. All you're doing is requesting information on port 80, using Telnet rather than a regular Web browser. If people like you were in charge, "legal" Web use would proabably be with IE and Communicatior, while all other use (uh, last I checked, Konqueror wasn't IE \|\| Communicator, nor are any proxy servers) would be considered "hacking," which, soon, in the U.S., will be punishable with a lifetime jail sentence. Learn a bit before you open yer goddamn mouth. And go back to Slashdot, willya?

	Hey d000000d, let's not be morons now (5.00 / 2) (#85)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:32:55 PM PST

	I wouldn't want to look like an idiot, d0000d. Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some countries, precisely because people like you do not have the developed moral sense not to use it. In America, the DMCA explicitly prohibits the use of circumvention devices, such as telnet. Whether or not the act of circumvention was easy or difficult does not enter into it. If you leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, that does not give me the right to steal it, d0000d. You seem to think that actions you take on your computer do not affect the outside world. Stealing information via computer is just the same as stealing in real life. You should have thought before doing this, d0000000000d.

	Ugh (none / 0) (#105)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:10:19 PM PST

	I wouldn't want to look like an idiot, d0000d. Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some countries, precisely because people like you do not have the developed moral sense not to use it. In America, the DMCA explicitly prohibits the use of circumvention devices, such as telnet. Whether or not the act of circumvention was easy or difficult does not enter into it. If you leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, that does not give me the right to steal it, d0000d. Telnet is not a hacking tool. It is a program to communicate with different computers on the internet. I use it daily to check my email on my universities computer. This is because you get an telnet account at my university. Nothing to do with hacking. You seem to think that actions you take on your computer do not affect the outside world. Stealing information via computer is just the same as stealing in real life. You should have thought before doing this, d0000000000d. He was not stealing information. He was simply looking at what the HTTP transaction was. (sorry if this is too technical for you) This is actually the same thing you would do if you would enter http://www.adequacy.org in your web browser. Only the text is hidden from you because it would confuse less technicaly skilled people.

	Fallacious logic (none / 0) (#137)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:10:34 PM PST

	All hacking tools communicate over the internet. Your first paragraph, therefore, is meaningless. The fact that you attend a university who's IT program is so deprived of funds that they haven't even installed a decent webmail system or at least MS Exchange, and require you to hack in to their machines to access your email merely demonstrates that you are a person of such poor intellect and abilites that you have been forced to attend a skinflint regional degree mill. This has no bearing on the argument, of course. Finally, the information he was looking at does not belong to him. He can only have obtained it through theft. The fact that the theft was simple is neither here nor there, as I have previously demonstrated.

	Where do you get this from? (none / 0) (#145)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:30:39 PM PST

	The fact that you attend a university who's IT program is so deprived of funds that they haven't even installed a decent webmail system or at least MS Exchange, and require you to hack in to their machines to access your email merely demonstrates that you are a person of such poor intellect and abilites that you have been forced to attend a skinflint regional degree mill. A decent webmail system? The Tulane University IT dept (of which it receives $13M annually) uses telnet and SSH (an encrypted version of telnet) to access their servers. Not only the sysadmins, but the students (undergrad and grad) regularly log in via these tools to accomplish their tasks, including using shell email clients. Last time I checked, Tulane University was ranked in the top 50 National Universities in America. Hardly a skinflint regional degree mill.

	What's your point? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:08:18 PM PST

	You've admitted you use hacking tools to read your mail (and probably other people's, too). Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university, it can hardly be considered one of America's top universities, can it? It's not exactly Harvard, is it? As for 13 million dollars, I suppose most of that money is going towards paying bandwidth fees for all the hacking caused by madating use of hacking tools. I'm sure most of the undergraduates, and all of the post-graduates, would prefer a clean, usable email interface, such as that found at hotmail. Unless Tulane is some kind of "hacker university", of course.

	Here's my point (none / 0) (#157)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:42:16 PM PST

	You've admitted you use hacking tools to read your mail If by "Hacking tool" you mean "Legitimate Remote-Access Tool" then yes, I use hacking tools to read my email. (and probably other people's, too) Pure speculation, which is completely unfounded. Get some facts. Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university Tulane is not a place, it's a school, founded in 1834 in New Orleans, LA. It's the second-higest ranked Medical school in the South. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's worthless. It's not exactly Harvard, is it? No it's not. But I suspect it wouldn't matter to you, would it? As for 13 million dollars, I suppose most of that money is going towards paying bandwidth fees for all the hacking caused by madating use of hacking tools. Once again, speculation. And once again, unfounded. I might also point out that a talented hacker can break into a system on a dial-up from a pay phone. The only reason I can think of that you would need significant bandwidth would be for a DOS attack. I'm sure most of the undergraduates, and all of the post-graduates, would prefer a clean, usable email interface, such as that found at hotmail. Many of the non-CS students do use a web-based email system (as well as POP3) but the CS students find it more convenient to use the shell with its added functionality and security than a web-based email exchange. Unless Tulane is some kind of "hacker university", of course. Yep. You figured it out. Your powers of perception are unparallelled and I bow before your supreme intellect.

	Harvard Uses Telnet (none / 0) (#354)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 12:50:29 PM PST

	Ok, after the comment about Tulane not being Harvard it got me to thinking so I decided to "Hack" Harvard, basicaly I went to www.harvard.edu and looked up a random name in the directory. Got their email address and telneted to the Harvard email server. to try this click start -- run -- telnet hcs.harvard.edu This proves that even a school as backward and ignorant as Harvard uses Unix systems and allows people to hack, sorry telnet, their email. ~Sesti

	LOL, you silly people (1.00 / 1) (#479)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 09:25:25 PM PST

	I was reading this for fun, but I can't help but join in the conversation. <CITE> Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university, it can hardly be considered one of America's top universities, can it? </CITE> Wow, so suddenly you (whoever you are) are some sort of university expert? Ha ha ha ha ha. I laugh at your lack of knowledge. =) Seriously though, Tulane is right up there in the top echelon of colleges in this nation. If only the profs at Tulane read this... Ha ha ha ha. =) <CITE> I'm sure most of the undergraduates, and all of the post-graduates, would prefer a clean, usable email interface, such as that found at hotmail. </CITE> More laughter. I would hardly call hotmail a clean and usable e-mail interface. I have used several internet e-mail services, of which I have found hotmail to be the most annoying and perturbing. I admit to liking clean interfaces, but I'd wouldn't decry people who use telnet to check their mail. Nor would I seriously call it a "hacker tool" since its main purposes are not for hacking. This whole conversation is very funny while somewhat disheartening. The great lack of education I see here is astounding, and saddens me greatly. Apparently we need a lot more computer education in our newspapers and our school systems right now, since so many people have muddled ideas about hackers and about internet tools and about Linux. Sigh. Heh, and I'll probably get flamed. Hooray for me! I've never "hacked" a machine in my life, nor do I intend to. I just wish that people would become more educated about what they speak about before they spend pages ranting. --Just another college student, just another valedictorian, just another National Merit winner, just another computer scientist.

	Your fallacious logic is itself fallacious... (none / 0) (#324)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:22:33 PM PST

	All hacking tools communicate over the internet. Your first paragraph, therefore, is meaningless. I've discovered a seriously dangerous hacking tool that enables you to edit configuration files - possibly in a malicious manner! It's called vi. It should be totally banned, dude. As should notepad on the windows platform, of course. The only thing is, vi doesn't communicate over the internet. Oops, I've just blown your logic. Sorry. You should still run for president against Bush on a campaign platform of banning all text editors, though. Tell ya what, in order to get a massive number of votes tell the public that evil terrorists can start World War III with vi. It worked with Mitnick and telephones...

	vi is not a hacking tool (none / 0) (#341)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:54:23 AM PST

	Can you use vi to hack into systems? No. Can you use vi to steal my credit card number? No. Therefore, vi is useless for hackers. Please stop posting misinformation.

	Oh, how naive... (none / 0) (#408)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:44:51 AM PST

	Forgive my asking, but how can you be so naive? It should be obvious to everyone that once the EVIL, MONSTROUS VI-USING HACKER (who has, by the way, been proven to be a subhuman creature from another dimension sent to torment us all) is actually INTO the system he (or she) would need something to edit vital configuration files in order to do their hellish work! Without vi (and other INSIDIOUS, EVIL text editors) hackers couldn't do anything! (btw, I'm being sarcastic. I was the first time. Did you miss it?)

	So? (none / 0) (#424)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:34:28 PM PST

	Let's see hime get into the system using vi. Oh, he can't. Guess you lost.

	What? (2.33 / 3) (#444)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:50:27 PM PST

	Lost what? The statement was "All hacking tools communicate over the internet". NOT "All hacking tools that enable you to access a system communicate over the internet". Let's build a logical chain here... 1) vi can be used maliciously by hackers. It is thus a "hacking tool". 2) It does not use the internet. Thus it is a hacking tool that does not communicate over the internet. 3) Thus the initial statement ("All hacker tools communicate over the internet") was proven incorrect. Despite your seeming inability to discern sarcasm, the logic is still impeccable.

	How can vi be used maliciously? (5.00 / 1) (#449)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:42:51 PM PST

	Explain to me how I can use vi to break into other people's computers, since it doesn't communicate over the net. It's a simple question, but all you've done so far is try to evade.

	Are you being deliberately obtuse? (1.00 / 1) (#450)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:22:07 PM PST

	Where have I said that vi can be used to "break into" somebody's computer? I haven't. What I have said - more than once, yet still you seem unable to comprehend - is that once you have accessed the system vi can then be used to alter vital configuration files. These files, once altered, can then be used to subvert the normal functionality of the computer. In other words, vi can be used as a "hackers tool". Refer to my previous article regarding the logic chain to demonstrate that "every hackers tool communicates over the internet" is patently false. Oh, and since I'm an Oracle dba let me give you an example using a config file I'm particularly familiar with: If I can gain access to an oracle account and vi I can do PLENTY of unpleasant stuff to the init.ora of a database. Including placing events in there that can dump EVERY sql statement going through that database. Said sql statement MIGHT include credit card or user details... (and if the database uses cold backups, I don't even need access to server manager or sqlplus... I can just wait for the next backup for the init changes to take effect) Just a couple of questions: 1) Have you figured out yet that I'm being sarcastic? and 2) Have you figured out that a TEXT EDITOR can be extremely useful to a hacker once he's gained access to an account on a remote computer? If not, read the following: a) Use telnet, or ssh, or some other remote access tool to access an account on a remote computer. b) Use VI over the previously established connection to edit whatever the hell you like, bubba. Since vi is running locally on the remote machine it is NOT running "over the internet", but it's still being used to hack a config file to disasterous effect. There, has that explained things to you yet?

	You lost this argument 3 posts ago (5.00 / 1) (#455)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:32:44 AM PST

	Admit it. vi can't be used to hack into computers. "Hacking into" being the correct usage of the word "hacking", how can something that can't be used to hack into machines be a hacking tool? It can't and you lose. Better luck next time.

	Obtuse? I take it back. (1.00 / 1) (#459)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 06:20:06 AM PST

	I cannot believe this. Obtuse doesn't go far enough. I NEVER SAID THAT VI COULD BE USED TO HACK INTO A SYSTEM, sparky. What I said was, vi is a tool that could be used maliciously by a hacker (and thus qualifies as a "hacker tool" (Yes, this is sarcasm)). IT CAN. I even gave you a real-world (admittedly Oracle specific) example that could conceivably be used to obtain credit card numbers - what more do you want? Oh, and what if I want to hack a computer program? What if I wanted to, for example, hack a software DVD player? I could conceivably do that, couldn't I? Yes, I could. What machine would I be hacking into? Couldn't be mine, as I already have legal access. So, I guess a "hacker" isn't just somebody who "hacks into a machine", right? Why, in my hypothetical hack at a software DVD player I might use such software as, say, a disassembler! Gasp, another tool which can be used by a hacker which doesn't use the internet. Crikey, I might even consider using a malicious assembler! Quick, ban Microsoft Visual C++, it's a hacker tool!(this is sarcasm too) Oh, and hey, here's another thing: aren't evil, evil hackers usually blamed for computer viruses? And yet, to write a virus you don't need to "hack into a machine" at all! Wow, I guess they're not really hackers!(more sarcasm) Oh, and from The New Hacker's Dictionary: hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker. Also, from Dictionary.com: hacker (hkr) n. Informal One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker. And more from dictionary.com.... hack (hk) v. hacked, hack·ing, hacks v. tr. To cut or chop with repeated and irregular blows: hacked down the saplings. To break up the surface of (soil). Informal. To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database. Slang. To cut or mutilate as if by hacking: hacked millions off the budget. Slang. To cope with successfully; manage: couldn't hack a second job. Hey, look, looks like your definition isn't enough. Hmmm.... now, what could be used to access a computer file illegally? Hey, vi could do that! It's a hacker tool after all!(yet more sarcasm) [Note: I get the impression the sarcasm in every single one of my prior posts has not been noticed (even after stating it), so I've really explicitly stated it this time. I hope this helps.]

	Look, we are not rocket scientists here. (5.00 / 1) (#460)
	by dmg on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 08:55:50 AM PST

	Please explain in layman's terms exactly how I can use vi to hack into a machine ? Until you do that, I think you are getting your panties in a bunch for no reason. Unless you are talking about vim, which has some internet functionality, then I agree with you, yes vim is a hacking tool. But vi ? No way jose. Also, even if vi is a hacking tool, it would not be very useful, since vi only runs on unix and the majority of sites worth hacking are running on IIS. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Hello? (1.00 / 1) (#461)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 11:56:22 AM PST

	Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Are you guys illiterate? Did you even bother to read what I actually said? Seriously, do you people have "reading difficulties"? For the (third? fourth? time) VI CANNOT BE USED TO "HACK INTO A MACHINE" AND I NEVER SAID IT COULD, YOU MORONIC CRETINS. And have you managed to discern the concept of "sarcasm" yet? What I said was, vi could be used to... oh, sod it. Why bother to repeat something you appear incapable of actually reading? Just read (ask an adult for help, if you like) what I said in the last post. And the post before that. And then go and bang your head up against a brick wall for five to ten minutes until you've got a hole in your brain large enough to accept the concept of a "hacker tool" that is not used to directly "hack into a system". Can you do that? Do you know what a hex editor is? Do you have any concept of what a disassembler is? What about an assembler? Maybe a compiler? They can all be used maliciously by a "hacker" (as can regedit and notepad...). They are all "hacker tools" (oops, there's more sarcasm) which don't use the internet. Jesus, I don't know if I'm surrounded by baiting trolls or moronic cretins. Or possibly moronic cretinous baiting trolls. Layman, he says. I HAVE explained it in laymans terms, I've just not explained it in pre-neanderthal terms. Boy, do I feel dumb for not doing that.

	warez isn't hacking d00d (5.00 / 1) (#462)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 03:20:42 PM PST

	Yes, we know what diassemblers, assmeblers. compilers and regedit are. They are used by warez d00ds to make illegal pirate software for linux, since linux won't run commercial software. They aren't hacking tools, because warez d00ds aren't hackers, much as they pretend to be. Even so, warez d00ds have no use for vi, because it can't be used to crack the protection from software that keeps it from running on non-windows computers. Hackers can't use vi, because as I have said repeatedly, and been ignored, it can't be used to hack. It's as simple as that. vi is just a text editor, which is like a word processor, only not as modern or as useful. vi doesn't even have fonts.

	Christ, I just can't stand it... (5.00 / 1) (#463)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 04:11:05 PM PST

	diassemblers, assmeblers. compilers and regedit.. Yes, I can tell you have such a detailed knowledge that you can't seem to spell two of them. Why aren't I surprised? So, if you use a disassembler you're not a hacker you're a "warez d00d"? A quick question: if you happened be a legitimate researcher using a disassembler to examine a copyright protection measure (and remember, it's not illegal under the DMCA if it's for legitimate research...) ... you're a "warez d00d"? Jesus Christ, I give up with you people. You're either incredibly stupid (a very strong possibility) or just enjoy baiting people. In either case, for the record: go defenestrate yourselves. I'm going to go and do something more productive: sit and stare vacantly at a wall as some paint dries. Here's an idea... while I'm doing that why don't you guys go out and improve your education a bit? Might I suggest "Computers For The Intellectually Challenged"? Get the audio version, that way you'll not need to have somebody read it to you...

	Legitimate research? (5.00 / 1) (#464)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 05:19:31 PM PST

	I'm afraid attempting to violate copyright is never legitimate. Scientists may serve the laws of physics, but they are not above the laws of man. Many warez d00ds claim that what they do is just research to demonstrate how not to do copy protection, but this does not carry any weight with me or the courts of America. If you are not a researcher at a university or corporate thinktank, then you are not doing research, you are breaking the law. If you are a genuine researcher, you probably have more important things to investigate. Copy protection on computer games is not going to advance the field of human knowledge very far. When are you warez d00ds and hackers going to stop rationalizing your crimes in these ridiculously transparent ways? ...if you happened be a legitimate researcher... Obviously you don't know very much about legitimate research, since you can't be bothered to write in coherent sentences. I'm going to go and do something more productive: sit and stare vacantly at a wall as some paint dries. You're going to go and sit and stare? Are you sure english is your first language?

	Oh, I give up. (2.00 / 1) (#467)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 04:16:13 AM PST

	I'm afraid attempting to violate copyright is never legitimate.... but this does not carry any weight with me or the courts of America. What? Who said anything about violating copyright? Oh, unless you're referring to reverse-engineering a copyright protection measure? Well, that's not legally "copyright violation". It is illegal under the DMCA but... The DMCA (you may have heard of it?) explicitly provides legitimate research as an exemption! Don't take my word for it, go look it up. If you are not a researcher at a university or corporate thinktank, then you are not doing research, you are breaking the law. Wait, didn't you just say that attempting to violate copyright is never legitimate? Now you're saying it's OK if you're a researcher at a university or corporate thinktank? When are you warez d00ds and hackers going to stop rationalizing your crimes in these ridiculously transparent ways? I really wouldn't know, since I am neither a "warez d00d" nor a hacker. I am, in fact, an Oracle DBA (that's "Database Administrator" for those who either don't know or can't be bothered to look it up) for a major UK financial institution. Oh, and guess what? I don't use linux, either. I use Unix, MVS, Unisys and NT. All the software I use, both at home and work, is legimately licensed. I am, in other words, a completely legitimate member of the IT industry. Sorry to burst your "He's a warez d00d" bubble. And now I truly am leaving, because this site (which I assumed to be a semi-serious, quasi-humourous, website) appears to be populated entirely by morons. Goodbye, it's been... sickening. Note to Adequacy admins: Stop using Scoop. Seriously. Your users seem to think that any software created by the open-source movement was created by "warez d00ds" or hackers. They'll be wanting to burn you in effigy next :)

	doing things with vi (2.00 / 1) (#452)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 11:18:41 PM PST

	Well, I can't do much of anything with vi, it's a usability nightmare. You can't spell evil without "vi", clear proof of its developer's malicious intent.

	Learn the Facts (none / 0) (#377)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:46:58 PM PST

	Well, as for telnet to be hacking tool, sure why not, anything is right? Don't make unfounded accusations, do you know where telnet comes from? No, not from any hacker site, not from any secret file server for the elite, it is a basic program that comes with windows install. It's uses are wide and varied, and less than 1% of this list of uses is for hacking. Telnet can be used to remote control quake servers, cable companies use it to reset and adjust routers on their networks like road runner, admins use it to reboot servers, http consoles can be brought back online. Telnet was developed, and then later foillowed a messenger service, running by default on windows nt/2k/xp. If you don't like the fact that it is used for hacking 1/100 times, deal with it. As for the person who posted that he stole information by getting the certificate, no he didn't. He simply viewed what is sent to EACH and EVERY person who uses this server, yes, that includes you who are reading this, just go to view source in your web browser. He "stole" nothing, if you think he did, every poster and reader here is responsible for the same, and no one can even look at a singel page on this server without stealing somthing. The kinds of hacker attacks today are mainly denila of service, which would bring this site down before you could type blah and hit post. They can use fat internet pipes and f5 networks with multiple ip's across the net, and cause a server to overload by simply feeding it too much to handle....and it doesn't take a certificate. For those of you who think that he was really trying to hack the website, any kid with copy paste can show you that, because every connection to this server makes it. As for hackers, DOS attacks and simply shutting the server down are not that hard with apache 1.30. It seems that most of the people posting here do not know what they are talking about, or breaking into servers. It is in this sites best intrest to close this topic. This is the kind of topic that attracts real hackers, a challenge to one or many of us is not something a site admin should make.

	Lunx =! Freedom of Speech (5.00 / 1) (#385)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:34:39 PM PST

	It is in this sites best intrest to close this topic. This is the kind of topic that attracts real hackers, a challenge to one or many of us is not something a site admin should make. It is funny how Linux apologists claim how they believe in free speech (i.e. the Free Speech VS. Free Beer debate they have), yet whenever someone posts a review that demonstrates how poorly Linux is when compared to Windows, they not only troll our messageboard and illegally telnet the server, but now they are threatening to hack and destroy this site. Obviously Linux apologists are only pro-free speech when that speeh is focused on how l33t they are. Everybody take note: Linux Is the 21st Century Soviet Union! Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	USC uses telnet. (none / 0) (#411)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 12:53:59 PM PST

	I would not call USC underfunded, having toured their datacenter. Not everyone wants to pay the Microsoft tax, and the advantage of living in a gasp democracy is that not everyone has to. If telnet works, use telnet.

	telnet is not a cracker tool (none / 0) (#231)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 02:55:15 PM PST

	telnet was one of the first internet tools ever developed! it was around before web browsers ever existed. telnet was the precursor to just about every internet program everyone on the planet uses. i still use it to get my email when i'm away from home. and now you want to make it illegal?

	Telnet a hacker tool? (none / 0) (#386)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:12:32 PM PST

	>> Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some >> countries, precisely because people like you >> do not have the developed moral sense not to >> use it. In America, the DMCA explicitly >> prohibits the use of circumvention devices, >> such as telnet. Whether or not the act of >> circumvention was easy or difficult does not >> enter into it. If you leave your car unlocked, >> with the keys in the ignition, that does not >> give me the right to steal it, d0000d. Telnet is not a hacker tool. It is used to remotely access a computer from another computer or terminal. (eg. Your lab has a mainframe and several terminals and you access your account on the mainframe from your terminal using telnet). I seriously doubt that telnet has been banned anywhere. Microsoft windows comes with telnet. Just go to your windows directory in a dos box and type "telnet" if you don't believe me. In fact windows comes with all the standard networking tools; telnet, ftp, ping, route, tracert, netstat, and arp. >> You seem to think that actions you take on >> your computer do not affect the outside world. >> Stealing information via computer is just the >> same as stealing in real life. You should have >> thought before doing this, d0000000000d. Sorry, I think I missed something here...what information was stolen again? Anyway, telnet was being used long before the world wide web ever existed on the internet.

	Don't post INSTRUCTIONS for other hackers! (5.00 / 4) (#86)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:33:02 PM PST

	Are you trying to get this entire site shut down by the F.B.I.? If you want to be a 'cracker' (yes, I'm familiar with your '1337 terminology), that's fine. You're only putting yourself at risk. But for you to use this discussion site as a means to re-distribute your cracking methods to others in your gang is woefully irresponsible. All I have to say is that soon enough decent, normal citizens will take notice of the way you abuse your computer privliges and then this kind of thing will be not only illegal, but will be impossible. Since you have shown that the 'honor' system doesn't work, it is time to physically prevent any unlicesned civillian from programming a home computer in ANY WAY. In the mean time, you need to rent yourself a copy of the video Scared Straight and put some serious thought into turning your life around before it's too late and you do find yourself in prison. I would pray for you, but there is no God. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	funnier and funnier ... (none / 0) (#152)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:07:08 PM PST

	what a hoot. I'm currently running Win98 because I can't get my Linux-Mandrake 8.0 to talk to my conexant winmodem at the current time. <cite>But for you to use this discussion site as a means to re-distribute your cracking methods to others in your gang is woefully irresponsible. All I have to say is that soon enough decent, normal citizens will take notice of the way you abuse your computer privliges and then this kind of thing will be not only illegal, but will be impossible. Since you have shown that the 'honor' system doesn't work, it is time to physically prevent any unlicesned civillian from programming a home computer in ANY WAY.</cite> I go up to <ul>V</ul>iew on the menu bar in IE and click on it. I go to Sour<ul>c</ul>e and it asks me do I want to load the source code of this web page in Wordpad because it's too big for Notepad. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear ... a DMCA-circumvention device and it's given away <b>free</b> by those <b><i>All-American Vulture-Capitalist Heroes</i></b> in Redmond, Washington!!! Oh dear oh dear oh dear ... will I have the inadequacy lawyers and the FBI (Feral Instigation Bubbas) beating down my door tomorrow? I click on the Cancel button - I'm quivering in my boots - or is it shaking with laughter? What's your opinion? You can run but you can't hide!!!

	You have made a greivous error (5.00 / 1) (#154)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:14:06 PM PST

	Reverse engineering is not illegal under the DMCA. You are thinking of UCITA, which has not yet been passed, though we are all praying that it will, and soon. As for now, you are quite within your rights to reverse-engineer adequacy.org, provided you use a legitimate HTTP client, that does not violate their TOS. I still think your action is reprehensible. Some of us still value our intellectual property rights, and respect those of others.

	You have made a greivous error. Yes, indeed ... (1.00 / 1) (#165)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:57:59 PM PST

	<cite>As for now, you are quite within your rights to reverse-engineer adequacy.org, provided you use a legitimate HTTP client, that does not violate their TOS.</cite> Puleeze!!! Find me a page on www.microsoft.com that'll tell me either notepad or wordpad are legitimate http clients. And they're in Windows, and Microsoft offers anybody the chance to dissassemble <b>anyone's</b> "Intellectual Property Rights" provided they know how. Let's see, telnet, Internet Explorer, wordpad, what next? Sad, isn't it! Yours in tears of laughter. Have a nice day.

	I can't take it any more! (1.00 / 1) (#142)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:16:11 PM PST

	That's it! I had to post. You people are IDIOTS. MORONS. STUPID. You have no idea what cracking even is! You people don't even know what a script kiddie is! I bet you don't even know what l33t means. He made a legitimate HTTP request of the server. He used the protocol in it's intended manner. You damn, stupid moron! If you don't beleive me, just check the RFCs. Oh wait, you don't know what an RFC is either.... Well, damn, then I guess you'll just have to look it up! I am so sick and tired of you damned lusers(ooh, another word to look up) acting like you know jack shit about computers! YOU HAVE NO BLEEDING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! I get this every damned day. Some idiot espousing on how much he knows about computers and how little I know. Get this, bunky, you haven't got a clue! You people, you stupid people. We work so hard to make the net work and useful and what do WE get? Nothing but this mindless, idiotic tripe! We get disrepect. We get frigging half-wits calling Richard Stallman a pimple-faced kid! Stallman has FORGOTTEN more than any of you will ever hope to know about computers. It's mindblowingly ignorant people like you that figured someday we'd buy everything online. That figured Y2k was gonna destroy the world! That think their damned CD-ROM is a cup-holder! I'm here to tell ya, SHUT UP. Just shut the hell up. Maybe, if you wheren't such a bunch of arrogant little SHITS you'd learn something about computers! To the person who wrote the article which seems to have brought forth commentary from all the stupid people, you SUCK as a journalist. You should hang your head in shame. I feel a great deal of pity and sorrow for those that brought an idiot like you into the world.

	Your comment is entirely false (5.00 / 2) (#198)
	by auntfloyd on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 07:50:46 AM PST

	He made a legitimate HTTP request of the server. He used the protocol in it's intended manner. You damn, stupid moron! Your argument is entirely false. While Adequacy.Org is not a "techie" website, allow me to indulge you and your fellow "propellorheads". `GET HTTP/1.1` is not a "legitimate HTTP request" according to any Internet standard, and I challenge any "h4xx0r" to prove otherwise. It was, at best, an attempt to crash Adequacy's web-server by sending an illegal command. Ever since the attack by the HardOCP kiddies, we've taken this sort of thing very seriously. -- auntfloyd

	This whole thing has gotten out of hand (1.00 / 1) (#219)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:28:25 AM PST

	It was, at best, an attempt to crash Adequacy's web-server by sending an illegal command. There are two problems with your argument: 1) It was NOT and attempt to crash the server by sending an illegal command; it was a (successful) attempt to find out what server Adequacy.org was running. Why? So he could make a point, not to attack the server. 2) The W3C specification on HTTP/1.1 clearly states that in the event of an unknown request by the client, an Error 400 shall be returned. Apache conforms to this specification by generating an error page. Additionally, if security is such an issue, I would like to point out that the ServerSignature variable is easily modifiable and you can turn it off.

	ServerSignature can be turned off... (1.00 / 1) (#412)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:02:28 PM PST

	But the Server: string in the header will require a modification of the sourcecode. A simple modification, mind you, but obviously beyond the technical grasp of the staff of this site, if the 'evidence' presented herein (disabling netcraft lookups but overlooking the ServerSignature directive; banning 'wget' without realizing that every request, even from a "permitted" browser, can be sniffed on the client at the packet level, etc) is any indication. BTW, IANYAL, but I'm well on my way...

	IE does it (1.00 / 1) (#328)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:44:18 PM PST

	>>GET HTTP/1.1 is not a "legitimate HTTP request" according to any Internet standard, and I challenge any "h4xx0r" to prove otherwise.<< If you check the server logs, you will see that every connection from Internet Explorer sends that request. Without that form, the web server will not respond. That is the initiator of the HTTP protocol.

	You might want to think before you act. (4.50 / 2) (#49)
	by Starship Trooper on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:25:33 PM PST

	As any intelligent person should know, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act expressly prevents hacking attacks such as this. Expect to speak with Adequacy's lawyers shortly. --- A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

	Hmph....... (1.00 / 1) (#126)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:46:11 PM PST

	(comment to self) Guess these guys never open the hood of their cars either, to find out whats under the hood.. And whats this I read that telnet outlawed in various countries?? Can anyone post any proof of this?? FYI- Telnet is also installed on every copy of Windows too.. According to your own statements, you are now in posession of a program that violates the DMCA. Prepare to be arrested..

	LIE! (5.00 / 1) (#131)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:58:21 PM PST

	Telnet is not in windows. I just checked every single menu item, and there was no telnet. You are a liar.

	How to run telnet on Windows (0.00 / 1) (#141)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:15:59 PM PST

	Click on the start menu. Click on run. Type "telnet www.adequacy.org" Click OK. This post protected by ROT26. Because of this, it is protected by DMCA. If you can read this post, you are violating the DMCA.

	I have banned this IP (5.00 / 1) (#149)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:44:52 PM PST

	Posting hacking information on Adequacy is strictly forbidden. This IP has been banned. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	"I have banned this IP" - so you say (1.00 / 1) (#166)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:06:54 AM PST

	<cite>Posting hacking information on Adequacy is strictly forbidden.</cite> And you know what you are talking about. I hope. That must be why your reviewer couldn't get Linux to install - though he was presumably using Win95 to write his article. The which program having telnet installed by default. The problem is that anyone who knows anything about computers knows about telnet and the <ul>V</ul>iew Sour<ul>c</ul>e command in Internet Explorer. They even know about the fact that using telnet exposes you to losing your security because telnet doesn't encrypt anything it sends over the Internet. Unlike SSH and OpenSSH which encrypt it for you. Now which would you prefer to have - knowledge about vulnerabilities that could hurt you, or to remain blissfully ignorant? Didn't Jefferson say the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? And you're decrying it!

	You, sir, are an ill-educated knave (5.00 / 1) (#168)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:28:44 AM PST

	Any scholar worth his salt is well aware that Jefferson said no such thing. The vast number of half-remembered quotations ignominiously attributed to Jefferson by the indolent is a modern embarassment. In themselves, these misquotes amount to nothing more than encapsulated appeals to authority, and should be ignored in polite conversation.

	John Philpot Curran (none / 0) (#413)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:06:18 PM PST

	"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt. (John Philpot Curran, Speech on the Right of Election of Lord Mayor of Dublin, 10 July 1790)

	Look a little further (1.00 / 1) (#143)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:17:47 PM PST

	Just because telnet is not plainly visible doesn't mean it isn't there. Try this: Start --> Run --> telnet (enter) Betcha $1M it works ;-)

	LMAO! (0.00 / 1) (#484)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 11:51:03 PM PST

	Bet you feel dumb :p

	Telnet does not equal hacking in any way. (1.00 / 1) (#135)
	by amishjosh on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:09:25 PM PST

	It's not encrypted. DMCA applies to breaking encryption. You people are foolish in your belief that telnet is hacking.

	They ARE much foolish. (IN-adequacy.org) (1.00 / 1) (#469)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 08:54:07 AM PST

	The DMCA was purchased by a set of corporations to legislate a way of doing business into continued existence. It is unworkable and generally will serve (as earlier anti-encryption legislation did previously) to drive encryption technology and research out of the USA and into more enlightened countries. How you confuse their interests with your own is beyond me. To decide that the DMCA made telnet to a port specific address illegal (I will bet your net admins, if you have any, would consider this a normal and very acceptable method of troubleshooting...) is an amazing piece of self-delusion, worthy of an IQ below 60. Have a great life, each day must be new and exciting to you. Kind of like my dog, but without the redeeming qualities of loyalty and affection.

	Netcraft reporting it OK... (0.00 / 1) (#110)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:20:42 PM PST

	Netcraft shows: The site www.adequacy.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1 on Solaris

	that's a different site. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:29:10 PM PST

	We're adequacy.org, not com. Anyway, the right search returns "We have been requested not to report on the site www.adequacy.org", because for them to run their scan on our site would be a violation of our Terms of Service, which they are respectful enough to comply with (unlike the criminal in the parent post of this thread). --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	D'oh! (1.00 / 1) (#123)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:38:45 PM PST

	D'oh! ;)

	Oh my god.... (1.00 / 1) (#417)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:21:09 PM PST

	You people are sick.. sick sick... Just becuase my browser doesn't have the ability to show graphics it's illegal? Against your TOS? What if I make IE not display graphics... does that mean that IE is not allowed here then? Sick sick sick... and sad, very sad... Hrmm, lemme use a very legal tool, visualroute and see what it turns up? hrmm, yep apache server, how fun... guess I'm banned huh? LAUGH!

	lol (none / 0) (#563)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 12:06:48 AM PST

	"Anyway, that action specifcially violates our Terms of Service [which you never agreed to]." "If lynx isn't already illegal, then it should be." "So anything that makes use of 'red' is a communist? That makes sense." "Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some countries.." "Let's see hime get into the system using vi. Oh, he can't. Guess you lost." "Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university, it can hardly be considered one of America's top universities, can it?" "If you want to be a 'cracker' (yes, I'm familiar with your '1337 terminology).." "Telnet is not in windows. I just checked every single menu item, and there was no telnet. You are a liar." Too funny. em, I bet Something Awful would be happy to host this site.

	Not Linux, however... (1.00 / 1) (#418)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:33:02 PM PST

	FreeBSD, from the look of things. Note that ALL packets sent from a host arriving AT my client are fair game, and have been sniffed and analyzed. No connection to this server was initiated other than legitimate HTTP traffic generated by a legitimate W3C-compliant web browser, but that every packet being sent FROM 63.89.124.239 in response to said queries carried with them identifiable characteristics.

	Misinformation Galore (2.25 / 4) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:43:03 PM PST

	I truly hope no one takes the above review seriously. There are so many mistakes in it, that it actually caused me physical pain to read through it. I'm going to take a minute to point out mistakes I caught in one read of the article. ...a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. His name is Linus, not Linux. ...including BSD which is based on Sun's server-grade Solaris operating system... This is backwards. BSD was developed years before Solaris was made. Just take a look at this for an outline of the history of Unix and it's variants. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. You are listing other distributions of Linux. The first two are still under active developement and should not be referred to as "previous versions" when compared to Mandrake. Linux is shareware... Wrong again. Linux is not shareware. It's is software copyrighted with the GPL, which allows for free distribution and gaurantees the right to modify it as you see fit. Notice I said "allows for free distribution", which leads to the next mistake... ...self-styled anti-capitalist hackers. If you had just said this without making it a link to the FSF home page, I wouldn't have had any qualms. I can't argue that there aren't supporters of Linux who happen to be anti-capatalist. I can argue, however, that the FSF is not part of that group. As that page clearly explains, they have absolutely no problem with making money via open source software. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Once again, you failed to research your topic and limited yourself to only one distribution of Linux. There are many distributions of Linux, including Mandrake, Debian, Redhat, Slackware, etc. Each distribution is made by a different group of people, with each group making different design decisions. Mandrake happened to compile their distribution for Pentium and above processors becuase it provides a slight performance gain. Mandrake, however, does not represent Linux as a whole. There distributions which are compiled so that you can use it on a 386, 486, IA-64, Power PC, Alpha and more. Just from that list alone, it's obvious that Linux provides a lot more flexibility than Windows ever has. ...why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Because it is owned and developed by Microsoft. If Microsoft does not port it to Linux, it is not the fault of Linux developers. The fact that you even posed this question proves beyond a doubt that you know next to nothing about software developement. You complain that Linux does not adhere to open standards! This has got to be a joke. Linux is nothing but open. Head over to kernel.org and help yourself to the Linux kernel. For free, you are able to peruse the heart of this operating system and you can use it however you like (as long as you don't deny that right to others). What more can you ask for? You go on to list other proprietary software that doesn't run in Linux with the same exasperation. Once again, I point out to you that that software is owned and developed solely by their respective companies. If the companies do not decide to support Linux, the companies are at fault. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet. You prove once again that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Firewall capabilities are built into Linux at the kernel level. That means, no matter what distribution you decide on, you will be able to filter network access in and out of your computer to your hearts content. And there are frontends to the filtering system that allow you to setup a firewall with the braindead ease you seem to require. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Thank you for putting the final nail into your own coffin. You freely admit that you never even tried out the software you are supposedly "reviewing". I couldn't imagine holding myself to such low standards, and it makes me shudder that you do. Especially while trying to inform people about something you are so blatently ignorant of. As you can see, this article is way off base. I'm not arguing that Linux is taking over or that Microsoft is controlled by Satan or anything of that sort. The only thing I wanted to say was that this article is wrong. Obviously so. Painfully so. In the computing world today, Linux fills a small niche. I don't even use it exclusively. I use it as router and server on my home network. On my desktop computer I use Windows 2000. Both OS'es fulfill the role I assign to them. If you don't want to take the time to become familiar with Linux, that's fine. Just please don't stand up on a pedestal and denounce something which you know nothing about. If any of you would like to know more about the Linux operating system, I would highly recommend that you find a credible source of information on the topic. Feel free to email me if you would like to find out a bit more. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	Please see a doctor. For your own good. (4.33 / 3) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:55:09 PM PST

	I truly hope no one takes the above review seriously. There are so many mistakes in it, that it actually caused me physical pain to read through it. If a disfavorable review of an operating system you have a manic inclination for really causes you physical pain, I think you should consult a doctor. Specifically, a psychiatrist. I can't argue that there aren't supporters of Linux who happen to be anti-capatalist. I can argue, however, that the FSF is not part of that group. As that page clearly explains, they have absolutely no problem with making money via open source software. Well, Linux is much used in China and Cuba, which proves your first point. However, your second point is like saying "these guys don't oppose swimming, but they advocate prohibiting beaches, ponds and rivers." Saying that you don't oppose selling software, while at the same time demanding that all software be free, is simply a contradiction.

	Sigh. (2.00 / 2) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:09:38 PM PST

	If you read the whole post, the end clearly shows I do not have manic inclination for Linux. It caused me physical pain becuase of the article blatent disregard for facts. However, your second point is like saying "these guys don't oppose swimming, but they advocate prohibiting beaches, ponds and rivers." Saying that you don't oppose selling software, while at the same time demanding that all software be free, is simply a contradiction. Ignorance knows no end. Please read that link I posted before you respond. Yes, they prefer free software. But not free as in price. Free as in what you are able to with it. It's all explained on the page, so read it before you respond. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	strawman. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:25:07 PM PST

	If you read the whole post, the end clearly shows I do not have manic inclination for Linux. It caused me physical pain becuase of the article blatent disregard for facts. Whatever the cause, if you suffer from actual physical pain when you perceive something as a "blatent [sic] disregard for facts," you do need to see a doctor. Soon. Please read that link I posted before you respond. I read it before I responded. Your accusation only reveals your deceptive character. Yes, they prefer free software. But not free as in price. Free as in what you are able to with it. It's all explained on the page, so read it before you respond. My argument was addressed to the content of the page you link, not the strawman you attribute to me. Please don't use rhetorical tricks to avoid a most serious argument.

	Here's your explanation (1.00 / 1) (#200)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:38:34 AM PST

	I'll refrain from making use of exaggeration again (the "actual physical pain" bit was the only time I used it in the original post. I was completely serious about everything else.) Also, I'll get my medical advice elsewhere, but thanks for the recommendation. Regarding the FSF, let me first say that I am in no way an official representative of them or their ideas. However, using the information presented on the page and expanding upon your analogy, I will try to clear this up. The FSF is calling for developers to free their software in the sense that users of the software are given maximum flexibility in how they use it. They want people (users) to be free to swim. They are definitely not asking to outlaw swimming pools (software). The FSF fully supports owners of swimming pools providing and charging for access to the pool (This is where capatilism is kept intact, which directly contradicts the anti-capatalist reference made in the original article). The request that the FSF makes is that the swimming pool owner should not keep secret how they run the pool. The swimmers should be kept aware about when it's open, when a lifeguard is on duty, that the pool is properly treated with chlorine, etc. etc. (This is the equivalent to the source of the software). Please remember, this is only an analogy. I only used it becuase you introduced it and it also happened to explain the situation pretty well after thinking about it. I'm not trying to use "rhetorical tricks" to avoid arguments. I seriously thought the above was readily apparent from the web page I linked to. Regardless of the FSF point, my original posts main point still stands. The "review" that was posted to this site was horrible. The reviewer had no idea what he was talking about and even admitted so himself when he stated he never installed the software in the first place. Once again, if anybody takes that review seriously, I'm sorry for them becuase they have been grossly misinformed. One last point, don't resort to calling me an open source fanatic. That's what most posters on here seem to be doing with everybody who is criticizing this article. When I first started reading this article I expected it to be a negative review. I didn't, however, expect it to be so obviously inaccurate. That's why I made that post in the first place, becuase the article is just wrong. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	FSF's PR Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#297)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:23:26 AM PST

	I'll ignore your attempts to change the subject to swimming pools and focus on the facts: They might not be outlawing the selling of free software, but they are indeed against it in the fact that their license states that even if you do try to sell your software, anybody else can give it away for free. The FSF only claim not to be against capitalism for PR. If you thought it was a negative view without him installing, then you would've just loathed the review if he installed it. I sadly did, and it turns out that the new version of Linux is as buggy as Netscape 6. It even messed up partitions beyond my F drive! They might be free, but I'm sticking to stable ol' Windows and Internet Explorer. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	...this is like screaming at a wall... (1.00 / 1) (#302)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:45:52 PM PST

	I wasn't trying to change the subjuct. I was using an analogy to illustrate my point. An analogy introduced by a previous post by another user. So your first sentence is wrong. You say that they are inherently against capatalism because the GPL insures freedom of use and distribution. Wrong again. There are companies that distribute free software, it just involves a different business model. The said company is supported by the FSF. The FSF supports capatilism, they're just calling for software developers to implement a different business model. Therefore, your second and third sentences are wrong. You then go on to say I would have loathed the review had he actually isntalled the software. That isn't the case. I was expecting a negative review. I openly admit, Linux is not ready for the average consumer's desktop. I wasn't expecting a completely misinformed mess posing as a review. Had the reviewer actually taken the time to get his facts straight, I would have enjoyed the review. So, your third sentence is also wrong. The last bit I cannot contest. You're actually sticking to something you know about, your experiences with Linux. It's true, if you don't install the OS correctly, you do risk corrupting your partitions. I'm sorry that happened to you. If you ever decide to try installing another OS again, I recommend you read all the pertinent documenation. There are numerous resources for help on getting partitions setup correctly for a Linux install. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	Hear Hear (2.00 / 1) (#72)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:14:43 PM PST

	Indeed... I read that article in total shock and amazement. I happen to use both linux AND Windows, side by side, daily. Both have their ups and downs...as a professional systems administrator AND systems programmer, I've written software for both systems, and in fact, have written software that's capable of running on BOTH platforms unmodified (thanks to the good offices of such multi-platform languages as perl, PHP, Java, Ruby, Python, and Gnu C/C++ (most of which happen to be open-source)). I have to say, that as a PROFESSIONAL programmer (11+ years of experience at that) that the above article was one that revealed a complete and total lack of research, and an absolute deficit of any knowledge whatsoever concerning how software is produced. I find it interesting that a person would say "But it doesn't run IE!". Sure it doesn't. Microsoft would rather commit ritual suicide than produce a version of IE to run on Linux...and there are some very good TECHNICAL reasons why IE won't be seen on linux as well. I could explain all about API differences, libraries, etc, but I would be wasting my time. Instead, I might point out that the humble reviewer, instead of crowing about his "bug finding prowess", might INSTEAD consider the very simple fact that he's completely ignorant of his subject. nuff said.

	Is this dufus for real? (1.33 / 3) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:00:20 PM PST

	If this dufus is an example of what is coming out of our higher education system, we are in a heap of trouble folks.

	Pardon me .. (4.33 / 3) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:39:41 PM PST

	.. for not taking seriously somebody who cannot correctly spell "doofus."

	Not so fast there, Mr. Language Person! (4.66 / 3) (#66)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:07:12 PM PST

	According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, "dufus" is a known variant of "doofus." I'm not really sure what standard I would apply to claim that "dufus" is not the correct spelling. While neither my unabridged Webster's, nor my Oxford Dictionary of Slang list the word at all, the aforementioned Dictionary of American Slang offers both spellings, as well as "duffus." While my source insists that the word is not of Yiddish origin, it can only offer comparisons with "goofus" and "doof" (Scot.) for clues to this interesting word's history. So. What can you do? If you think "dufus" feels more right to you than "doofus", then "dufus" it is! Or why not try "duffus" for a while and see if that suits you better? There are no clear-cut answers to this problem, I'm afraid. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Grossly inaccurate (5.00 / 4) (#44)
	by sdem on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:19:46 PM PST

	OK, overall, I appreciate the detail into which your article delves. But I have to take issue with some of the facts as you present them. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on Sun's server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux. This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE) knows that BSD is descended from SunOS, which is Sun Microsystem's standard operating system on their mid to high-range servers currently. Obviously, with an operating system this powerful out on the web, Linux won't be able to compete for long. Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation. This in and of itself ought to be a black mark against Linux. After all, how many Windows computers do you see with a manual? None, because it doesn't need to come with one. When you can say the same of a Linux distro, come back and tell me all about it. After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality. If that's true, then how come there are a bunch of computers out there with MacOS installed? Why would they remove Windows, anyway? Perhaps you should re-examine the facts before you write your next story.

	More things wrong (2.00 / 2) (#170)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:03:14 AM PST

	<<This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE) knows that BSD is descended from SunOS, which is Sun Microsystem's standard operating system on their mid to high-range servers currently. Obviously, with an operating system this powerful out on the web, Linux won't be able to compete for long.>> Actually, the BSDs are based off the original UNIX which the University of California at Berkely were the first to play with the original UNIX code. The BSDs were actually based on Unix 4.4 <<Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.>> Previous!?! What the hell do you mean PREVIOUS!?! These are names of CURRENT distributions. Distribution Company --------------------------- Mandrake Linux MacMillan Red Hat Linux Red Hat OpenLinux Caldera Also, Red Hat 7.2 will be more highly welcomed because Red Hat is a multi-BILLION dollar company that has done much for the advancement of Linux. It's also the most popular distro. <<The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.>> So I guess that means the guys at Industrial Light and Magic and Pixar are all college students and anti-capitalist hackers? They run Linux on the graphic rendering servers. << was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux!>> Maybe you should have downloaded the right ISOs then shouldn't you have? <<It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux.>> Kinda like how you can't take programs from any other OS and run them on Windows? Why don't you try running some Mac software under Windows. <<Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.>> Obviously you have never read the halloween documents where MS stated that Open Source Software and Linux software were just as good if not BETTER than their stuff. Note: MS confessed to the authenticity of these documents. <<The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.>> First off Windows took much longer than 10 years. Microsoft was WELL funded by many other companies from BASIC (Altair) to DOS (which was just a recoded QDOS which was a sloppily backwards engineered version of CP/M-86) to Windows NT (which "borrows" much of its code from OS/2) all the way to XP which uses the NT kernel. Second I point you back to the halloween docs. Third, Linux was started by one man back in 1991 with version 0.01 and didn't become 1.0 until awhile later. Linux is a kernel. Using to make a OS didn't come until later still. And for a kernel that's now only at version 2.4.10 (DO NOT confuse this with 8.1 or 7.2) the Linux kernel hasn't done too damn bad.

	My god this is soooo funny (0.66 / 3) (#312)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:55:07 PM PST

	Ok, i know this site is mostly a joke, in a sense. and some people realize that (or not) and posted major mistakes about the article. well, one reader is being a serious troll, or a serious dumbass. And i since im bored, i thought i'd correct his mistakes :) "First off Windows took much longer than 10 years. Microsoft was WELL funded by many other companies from BASIC (Altair) to DOS (which was just a recoded QDOS which was a sloppily backwards engineered version of CP/M-86) to Windows NT (which "borrows" much of its code from OS/2) all the way to XP which uses the NT kernel. " Windows, the operating SHELL was first developed by Microsoft in the middle of 84. the first real full release of Windows (windows 3.0) was in 85,86 or around there. Note that this is still a shell. it REQUIRES DOS to start and operate within (Exactly how X is on Linux/Unix). Now, the first Windows Operating system was WIndows 95. which came out in what, 96 ? second. DOS was not recoded QDOS which was a backwards engineered CPM/-86 or whatever. Marketing genius bill gates sold(licensed) IBM an operating system for their new computer (The PS/2) for 50,000$. the problem was that the only thing they had was a friend who was hacking his own operating system in seattle. it was NOT a hacked/backwards engineered port of CPM. it was a from scratch Command Line OS. Gates bought the source from the guy outright for 50k. and DOS was born. third, Altair, or ANY OTHER company has EVER given funds to Microsoft. BASIC is a programming language that Bill Gates and Paul Allen coded for the Altair Personal Computer (which was sold as a project kit in an electronics cataloge that i used to subscribe to). Alllllllllllllllll of microsofts money is from either selling stock or selling software. they have no accounts payable, they have no money that is owed to people. they have no debts. fourth. IBM and Microsoft teamed up together for about 3 years and worked on a project called, OS/2. They both wanted different directions so they abondoned the project, but both kept the source code to OS/2. IBM developed it its own way, and Microsoft theres. there are very few things different, other than NT 3.5 was marketed better than IBM did with OS/2, and the GUI interface. The Windows XP operating system is the first REAL, TRUE 32-bit Home multimedia enhanced operating system from Microsoft. Windows 95,98,98se, ME where all built around the old 16 bit DOS kernel. This is to maintain compatibility with ANY old hardware/software. Them throwing the 16 bit layer out breaks any of those old apps in windows 2000/XP, but i think no one cares one they realize how much stabiler/faster true,full 32bit kernels are. oh ya, Redhat is NOT a multi-billion dollar company. they barely turned a measly 600k profit after 5 full years in business. if you look at their stock (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHAT&d=t), you'll see that they're only worth about 3.50 a share (10/2/2001) major money there. :) ok, im done :)

	My god this is soooo funny (1.00 / 1) (#334)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:01:15 AM PST

	<<<Windows, the operating SHELL was first developed by Microsoft in the middle of 84. the first real full release of Windows (windows 3.0) was in 85,86 or around there. Note that this is still a shell. it REQUIRES DOS to start and operate within (Exactly how X is on Linux/Unix). Check your dates, Windows 3.0 wasn't available until early 90's. <<<Now, the first Windows Operating system was WIndows 95. which came out in what, 96 ? Wrong again.. Windows95 is a shell, just as Windows 3.0. Notice the MS Dos v7.0 which boots? <<<Alllllllllllllllll of microsofts money is from either selling stock or selling software. they have no accounts payable, they have no money that is owed to people. they have no debts. Wrong again... Microsoft contracts most of the programming out to various companies. They owe plenty people plenty of money. Not to mention, if you want my opinion, they owe anyone who's ever had an original idea some gratitude for their success. <<<third, Altair, or ANY OTHER company has EVER given funds to Microsoft. BASIC is a programming language that Bill Gates and Paul Allen coded for the Altair Personal Computer (which was sold as a project kit in an electronics cataloge that i used to subscribe to). I don't know if this is fact or fiction, but I'm guessing bill gates couldn't code his way out of a slot machine. <<<Windows 95,98,98se, ME where all built around the old 16 bit DOS kernel. This is to maintain compatibility with ANY old hardware/software. Go take a nap. Microsoft doesn't care about hardware issues. Windows9x kernel was coded by a completely different set of people, built around Multi-Media.. While it is true that Windows9x kernel had good support for old hardware, stating that it's only purpose of being 16 bit because of the hardware is just plain foolish. <<<oh ya, Redhat is NOT a multi-billion dollar company. they barely turned a measly 600k profit after 5 full years in business. if you look at their stock (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHAT&d=t), you'll see that they're only worth about 3.50 a share (10/2/2001) Since when do you have to show a profit to be a multi billion dollar company?

	You're an MCSE? (1.00 / 1) (#185)
	by pseudoanonym on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:46:34 AM PST

	This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE) knows that BSD is descended from SunOS... Oh, I see, you're an MCSE, and that immediately makes you an expert on Unix. From www.freebsd.org: The FreeBSD project had its genesis in the early part of 1993, partially as an outgrowth of the ``Unofficial 386BSD Patchkit'' by the patchkit's last 3 coordinators: Nate Williams, Rod Grimes and myself. No mention of Solaris, I'm afraid.

	You fucking stupid unix weenies (4.33 / 6) (#192)
	by dmg on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 06:40:30 AM PST

	Why are you all so jealous of MCSEs ? Could it be because we make more $$$s than you ? Could it be jealousy that Microsoft 0wns the desktop, and soon the server room too ? This MCSE bashing is part of the Unix 'I'm so fucking 133t' that caused businesses to reject it in the first place. You Unix elitists have brought this failure upon yourselves, but refuse to learn your lesson. Until you come down from your high-horses and start providing solutions, instead of half-baked pearl scripts, you will be forever marginalised. Microsoft OWNS you. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Got proof? (5.00 / 2) (#221)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:53:31 AM PST

	Why are you all so jealous of MCSEs ? Could it be because we make more $$$s than you ? According to ComputerJobs.com's 2000 Salary Survey, MCSEs make the least full-time salary at $42K / yr. On Monster.com's Tech Salary Guide a UNIX administrator makes almost $62K / yr. Could it be jealousy that Microsoft 0wns the desktop, and soon the server room too ? If you read the latest Netcraft Survey you would see that Microsoft, while having a significant majority of physical computers running web servers, still lags far behind Apache in the number of domains. It is also interesting to note that the Gartner Group released an Advisory warning against using IIS for security reasons. This MCSE bashing is part of the Unix 'I'm so fucking 133t' that caused businesses to reject it in the first place. On the contrary, business already use UNIX in a wide variety of mission-critical applications. Chances are, your ISP uses a some flavor of UNIX. Sun Solaris is still used by a large number of businesses for their computing needs. Microsoft OWNS you. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that Microsoft owns you, Mr MCSE.

	Oops (none / 0) (#223)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:02:07 PM PST

	Made some HTML errors. Here's the correct links: Salary Survey Salary Guide Netcraft Survey Gartner Advisory Mission Critical Applications

	I'm a MCP - Microsoft Corporate Pussy (1.00 / 1) (#276)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:44:17 AM PST

	Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that Microsoft owns you, Mr MCSE Thats telling them!

	ahem its not l33t thank you! (0.00 / 1) (#264)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:12:38 AM PST

	HEY, its not l33t! if j00 4r3 a 1337 MC53 7h3n j00 5h0u1d b3 1337 700!!!

	grin (0.00 / 1) (#267)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:24:50 AM PST

	You provided the best laugh I've had all week :-) Thnx

	Yeah, so I'm unix weenie (1.00 / 1) (#283)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:29:46 AM PST

	Ok, so usually I let this sort of thing roll off my back....but your really torched it when you even MISSPELLED the frigging name of the language. Its PERL you twit. Let me see if I can't dissect this little treatise one mindless comment at a time <Why are you all so jealous of MCSEs?> Uhhh....if I wanted an MCSE I would have majored in CIS and not Computer Science. But I guess someone has to dig the digital ditches. <Could it be because we make more $$$s than you ?> Heh, not likeley. Ditch digging only feels like it pays more because everyone else feels pretty bad for you, average starting pay for a perl coder in the right environment is usually about 60,000 to start. <This MCSE bashing is part of the Unix 'I'm so fucking 133t' that caused businesses to reject it in the first place.> Hehe, you don't read the news do ya? I just delivered a full featured cXML business system written in perl on Linux that cost 1/5th the amount of a commercial solution, I got paid twice as much and still came in under that figure, its 10 times faster than Trading Networks, and if they don't like me, they can hire someone else to work on the codebase. I don't know any business that would pass that up given the present state of the economy. Businesses only rejeced the *NIX solutions because they needed a multi-thousand dollar server to run the OS on. The cxml system I wrote operates at full speed on a P-133. And yes, we are so fucking 133t. I've loved watching the tech economy fall from all angles. Almost every single MCSE I know is scrambling to find another job right now, but I and all of my Open-Source friends have more work than we can shake a stick at. Know why? Because we don't tie the client down to anything. Because I don't have to preface what I sell with:"well this will work if we buy this $10,000 package from MicroSoft first". Here's a nickel kid, go buy a real operating system

	In your dreams (5.00 / 1) (#285)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:49:27 AM PST

	The average pay for a Perl coder may have been that high during the late nineties, but since the dot-com crash has given personnel departments the excuse they needed to clean out the dead wood and management the chance to cut wages, Perl coders can't expect half that much. It's unlikely that they will ever see that kind of money again, unless they go back to school and learn java. JSP and ASP are fast squeezing out Perl on the server, due to superior design and functionality, and jobs for Perl coders are becoming increasingly rare. And it's spelt Perl, by the way. It is never spelt in all caps.

	In your dreams (none / 0) (#336)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:13:58 AM PST

	<<<<< The average pay for a Perl coder may have been that high during the late nineties, but since the dot-com crash has given personnel departments the excuse they needed to clean out the dead wood and management the chance to cut wages, Perl coders can't expect half that much. It's unlikely that they will ever see that kind of money again, unless they go back to school and learn java. JSP and ASP are fast squeezing out Perl on the server, due to superior design and functionality, and jobs for Perl coders are becoming increasingly rare. <<<<<<And it's spelt Perl, by the way. It is never spelt in all caps. Whoa, wait a minute Microsoft boi.. Do some research on Java. You'll find it to be incredibly(sp) slow. Not to mention.. It was designed to work platform independant. ASP? I'll pass. That's just as slow as Java. Now, throw some PHP code on an Apache webserver on your favorite flavor/distro of Linux or even some of the latest Solaris.. and you'll be set.

	I believe you'll find it is Perl that is slow (none / 0) (#340)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:51:53 AM PST

	JSP is quite well known for being fast "straight out of the box". To get equivalent performance out of Perl requires considerable tweaking, particularly if you are using mod_perl. Perl is a memory hog. Java is currently equalling C in speed of execution for many types of program. Take your uninformed Perl zealotry elsewhere. You are not dealing with ignorant slashbots here, and your fabrications will be exposed.

	Re: I believe you'll find it is Perl that is slow (none / 0) (#409)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 12:21:18 PM PST

	Been reading the Sun marketing stuff again eh? When was the last time you did a benchmark? Ok, sure java is pretty good on the back end, not too slow, but not too fast either (unless you jit). However, java has it's place and it's limitations. Ever try building a cross platform gui app with it? Not just a wizard or applet but a real app? I think you'll find that swing is a dog and it's API isn't that great. Now, perl may not be the fastest thing on the planet, it's interpreted after all, but it talks to almost every database and api around. It has it's place after all; and the performance and memory savings are largely in the coding. I've seen java programs that were slower and more memory intensive than their perl counterparts and vice versa. C'mon people let's be realistic. Like you point out, this isn't slashdot (but it that article on mandrake is any indication, it's worse).

	Wrong again. (none / 0) (#422)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:25:26 PM PST

	Try actually learning about things before you make up lies. Perl doesn't save memory, it wastes memory. You should see how slash eats memory, for instance. Besides that, you haven't offered me a single advantage over Java there, since Java also talks to every database on the planet, and through a cleaner API, to boot. Have you ever tried writing a cross-platform GUI app in Perl? How's Perl's 3D api working? Can you use Perl for OpenGL? You're final statement is the funniest. We've gone from "Java is crap, use Perl" to "they are about as good as eah other, for different things." I presume that we will soon be reaching the acceptance that Perl is obselete.

	wrong? (none / 0) (#498)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:50:26 AM PST

	Actually Perl and PHP can both do opengl... http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpopengl/ http://web.cs.ualberta.ca/~melax/perl/tutorial.html

	MCSE=incompetant (1.00 / 1) (#300)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 11:21:18 AM PST

	Microsoft OWNS everything! Why do you suppose that is? Because they possess a superior product? Quite the contrary. They possess the marketing power and support to force their product on the masses. "Why are we jealous of MCSE's? Because $?", obviously the comments of an incompetent MS drone. Take a look @ Unix Adminstration. You will find much more $ available for you. Oh yea, that's right you are an MCSE you're special. Dumbass. Please keep using Win, you are clearly not deserving of a man's OS. After all...without win, however would your wife vrate birthday cards?

	The Penguin kicked your LILLY ASS!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#318)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:53:39 PM PST

	It is interesting to witness the MCSE VS Unix thing.I think it is apparent that what we have with the MCSEs is a case of pure technological jealousy...that coupled with the fear of wasted time and money spent on a "MCSE based education." Unix has been around long before Bill Gates ever had his first ejaculation...alright. Maybe not quite that long. But a long time. It is a far superior OS. It is legendary in statute that has been trusted by many for a long time. I have used EVERY MS based OS that has come out since 1985...with the exception of Windows XP, which I will NOT bother with. NONE compares with the sheer power of Unix/Linux based OSs. NONE. The author of this article is more than entitled to his views. But it certainly would be nice to have somebody cover this subject that had a remote clue of what he was talking about (which this person clearly does not). Fact of the matter is, MS wants very much to obtain the share of the mission critical market, and what I find delight in is the fact that XP will again fail to accomplish this goal. So sorry little MSCEs. You will never know the true fruit of true mission critical applications.

	Every MS based OS? (1.00 / 1) (#320)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:39:54 PM PST

	How was xenix? Good? Crap?

	Xenix is still around; Caldera sells it (none / 0) (#528)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 09:19:15 AM PST

	How was xenix? Good? Crap? Microsoft never pushed XENIX because the company didn't want to "build a long-term strategy around an operating system they'd have to pay royalties to AT&T for" (source). XENIX is still around; it's changed hands and names several times, from "XENIX" to "SCO UnixWare" and now Open UNIX® 8. Caldera positions Open UNIX 8 as a server OS that can also run Linux binaries. -- Pinocchio pinocchio © pineight * 8m * com

	MCSE (1.00 / 1) (#367)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:10:48 PM PST

	MCSE = Must Consult Someone Experienced and yes... Money is everything... You try getting along with out it for a while. The other 2 were very true points.

	Value of MCSE(?) (1.00 / 1) (#398)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:22:42 AM PST

	First of all MCSE's are commodity items. If you leave, then you are easily replaced. Good for the business, bad for you. Secondly, how long will you be an MCSE? Is not Microsoft going to pull your ticket if you don't recertify for Win/2000 by year end? So MCSE's are in Microsoft's upgrade treadmill as well. I know that my skills as a Unix sysadmin are transferable to machines large (IBM S390 under Linux) and small (Linux, Free/Net/OpenBSD, Solaris, [need I go on?]) Also, there are fewer of my type than yours, so I am less of a commodity (so far).